{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1505","title":"\"Syracuse City School District Strategic Plan\"","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["\"Syracuse City School District Strategic 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/1505"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["73 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_781","title":"Test data","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":["1991/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Education--Standards"],"dcterms_title":["Test data"],"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/781"],"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\nIndiana Achievement Level Tests Reading Goal Structure 1. Reading Strategies/Word Meaning a. Context clues b. Root/base words, structural analysis, prefixes and suffixes c. Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms, multiple meaning d. Phonetic clues 2. Literal Comprehension a. Identify main idea/summarize b. Recognize or recall significant detail c. Determine sequence of ideas or events d. Interpret directions e. Use reference skills 3. Inferential/Interpretive Comprehension a. Make inferences b. Make predictions c. Identify cause and effect d. Categorize information 4. Critical Judgment Skills a. Draw/evaluate conclusions b. Distinguish between fact and fiction c. Identify persuasive content d. Identify authors purpose e. Identify authors point of view, bias, stereotypes f. Identify literary devices/techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) g. Identify literary elements (plot, characters, setting, theme, etc.) h. Distinguish between fiction-nonfiction, fantasy realityIndiana Achievement Level Tests Language Usage Goal Structure 1. Writing Strategies and Skills a. Prewrinng b. Drafting skills: complete sentences, clarity, figurative language, mood, tone, etc. c. Revising proofing, editing d. Forms appropriate to purpose e. Appropriate sentence forms f. Paragraph skills including form, topic sentence, etc. 2. Grammar and Usage a. Basic sentence patterns b. Types of phrases and clauses c. Noun forms including plurals, possessives d. Verb tenses e. Irregular verb forms f. Subject-verb agreement g. Adjective forms h. Adverb forms i. Pronoun forms including plurals, possessives j. Negative forms 3. Mechanics of Writing a. Appropriate end punctuation b. Commas c. Apostrophes d. Enclosing punctuation e. Underlining titles f. Beginning capitalization g. Capitalization of proper nouns and adjectives h. Capitalization of pronoun I i. SpellingIndiana Achievement Level Tests Mathematics Goal Structure 1. Reasoning/Connections/Problem Solving a. Logic/reasoning b. c. 2. a. b. c. d. Strategies Connections/application of process skills Number Sense/Place Value Counting, order Greater than, less than, equal comparisons Odd, even Place value e. Rounding f. Fraction and decimal concepts and relationships g. Ratios, proportions, percent h. i. j- 3. Notation systems Primes, factors, multiples, roots Application of process skills Computation /Estimation/AIgebraic Functions a. Addition and subtraction of whole numbers (algorithms) b. Multiplication and divisions of whole numbers (algorithms) c. Addition and subtraction of fractions and decimals (algorithms) d. Multiplication and division of fractions and decimals (algorithms) e. Commutative, associative, distributive properties/order of operations f. g- h. i. 4. Solve equations, evaluate expressions, understand concept of variable Patterns and functions Coordinate system Application of process skills Geometry and Spatial Sense a. Recognize, describe, compare, classify geometric objects b. Describe geometric relationships c. Identify, describe angles d. Line characteristics e. Geometric patterns f. Identify fundamental transformations g. Pythagorean theorem h. Application of process skills 5. Measurement and Estimation a. Attributes of length, capacity, volume, weight, mass b. Attributes of time and temperature c. Concepts of perimeter, area, diameter, radius, circumference d. Value of money e. Relationship between and among metric and customary units f. Application of process skills 6. Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability a. Analyze data from charts, graphs, and tables b. Concepts of chance, probability, prediction c. Measures of central tendency d. Ordered pairs e. Application of process skillsNWEA NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION Achievement Level Tests: Assessments that Make a Difference Achievement Level Test results help teachers, schools and districts to: T'he Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Achievement Level Tests are a  Monitor the progress of all students toward state and district standards series of tests aligned with local curriculum and state standards. While most tests simply provide scores that compare and rank students and schools. Achievement Level Tests provide the information most important to educators  scores that measure growth in student achievement. Level tests provide thorough and reliable data that can be used with confidence to make instructional and program improvement decisions. about the testing experience. Another benefit of focusing the tests around specific achievement levels is that each test is shorter in length, resulting in less class time used for testing. But most importantly, teachers receive accurate information that enables them to monitor each students academic growth. When to Administer Achievement Level Tests Most districts administer Achievement Level Tests in both the fall and spring. Tests may be administered starting in the spring of second Measure growth in student achievement over time Place students into appropriate courses or instructional settings  Provide instructional focus  Screen students for Title I eligibility, special education services and gifted programs  Evaluate program effectiveness More Accurate Data About Individual Students Teachers want to improve student learning, but to do this, they need more accurate information than the traditional, single-form test can provide. With conventional tests, low-performing students see only a few questions that they can get right, and high-performing students see only a few that they will miss. This RIT Score 250 r 238 - 226 - 214 - 202 - 190 Achievement Level Test Longitudinal Report   *  diiu| R Score H Average W Grade 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 grade. The reading and language usage tests are appropriate for most students through grade 10\nthe mathematics tests through algebra and geometry. Science tests can be given to students in third grade through high school science courses. Term F96 S96 F97 S97 F98 S98 F99 Academic growth for individual students can be tracked through the NWEA longitudinal report. Shown here is a student's progress in mathematics from grade 6 through grade 9. The Test Administration Process Achievement Level Tests are not timed and take about one Communicate to parents and the community not only causes boredom and frustration in students, it also makes achievement scores less accurate. With Achievement Level Tests, students take tests that are tailored to their current achievement level. This gives students a fair opportunity to show what they know and can do. There are no wasted test items on level tests. Students can actually attempt all items in a given test, which makes them feel better hour per subject for most students. An easy-to- follow administration booklet and instructional video smoothly guide the test administration process. For all districts new to the concept, NWEA provides an on-site introductory workshop that guides teachers through proper test administration procedures. The administration of NWEAs Achievement Level Tests differs from other tests since students must be assigned a test of appropriate difficulty. In the first year of the program, brief locator tests help place students into the right test level. In subsequent years, NWEA's scoring program uses prior test results to automatically assign students to the right level. Test Results Returned Quickly, Measure Progress Level test results are returned within two weeks. Districts with appropriate technical expertise may license the NWEA scoring software for immediate on-site scoring. Level test results are reported on an achievement scale called the NWEA RIT scale. This scale RIT Score -! State Standard Score = 23i~~|-- 220 - IM T 21 7l 221 225 205 - 190 - 201 208 211 175 Grade Median RIT Score Achievement Level Test scores can predict performance on critical state tests. The chart here shows the progress of students towards one state's reading standard of 231. 3 4 enables teachers to measure student progress much like a yardstick measures height. Growth in student achievement can be accurately tracked between terms and across years. In addition to the RIT score, NWEA provides percentile scores for districts to use to compare their students to others in the nation. NWEAs norms include more than 500,000 students, the largest K-12 norm base in the country. More importantly, NWEA provides the only systematically-collected set of growth norms available, enabling districts to accurately compare the growth of students with others in their grade. Goal scores provide specific measures related to the districts curriculum. These scores make it possible to compare student performance in each goal area to typical performance for students in that grade. Reports Summarize Test Results, Used to Improve Learning NWEA provides class, grade, school, district, and parent reports. Teachers use the information to focus classroom instruction and help pinpoint areas where individual students might need extra attention. District and school leadership teams use the data to make informed decisions and answer the difficult question, Are we a more effective school system today than we were yesterday? \"This scale enables teachers to n n n n n n 5 6 7 8 Predicting Student Performance on State Tests Schools should never be surprised by student performance on high-stakes tests. NWEA staff works with school districts to create an alignment between the level test scales and the state test scales. Districts commonly use data from Achievement Level Tests to predict student performance on state tests, which measure student progress much like a yardstick measures height.\" helps districts identify students eligible for special intervention programs and shows how all students are progressing toward the standards. NWEA Support to Districts NWEA provides extensive support to districts that use Achievement Level Tests, from early design decisions through the implementation process, and appropriate and effective use of the data. NWEA: Assessment Expertise The Northwest Evaluation Association is a non-profit organization working in partnership with many of our nations school districts. Our mission, Partnering to help all kids learn, is rooted in the belief that accurate information about student achievement leads to improved student learning. NWEA provides professional training, consulting services, and ongoing research. We build long-term relationships with clients, helping them design and maintain comprehensive assessment programs that are making a difference in student learning. Northwest Evaluation Association 15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97224 Tel: (503) 624-1951 Fax: (503) 639-7873 www.nwea.orgLittle Rock School District ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 2000-2001 Test Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 'j I. i\"! I  1 t , / 1*1 1 it| I \"n ^IjI hki J ta' 'fe 'fc* it IsStiBi- .  'riji.-M 1 --H-l--J'lTi JfiBi! 1-,-1 ' 12 Observation Survey Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Achievement Level Tests: Reading, language arts, math, science April Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring 1st Quarter CRT-October Alg I \u0026amp;II Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg I 811 Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig 2! Quarter CRT-January Read \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts 3'\" Quarter CRT-March Read. \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig End of Module Math As completed As completed As completed As completed As completed As completed End of Unit Science As completed As completed As completed As completed As completed End of Level Social Studies State tRa lli'hti Miifefy' of kfstii bon^hitiarkdi And standards, ' May SwHaSSl state Benchmark: Math and Literacy April April (pilot) April End of Course Algebra I (pilot) May May May May End of Course Geometry (pilot) May May May End of Course Literacy (pilot) iBSi 1 Ihfeij^ibk/\nft May SAT-9: Norm-referenced Test Sept ACT. PLAN, EXPLORE PSAT NAEP Feb. NAEP (randomly selected schools) February Sept Sept October Feb. Feb. FebruaryLittle Rock School District HAND DELIVERED February 13, 1991 53 V I a*?'  Mrs. Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building t * Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Hart: As per your telephone request through Polly Ramer on February 12, 1991, I am forwarding 1990 test scores for Carver and Washington Elementary Schools. I regret the delay, but I was out of the office at the time of the request and my staff is not authorized to release information without my approval. Sue Tadlock indicated to Ms. Ramer that a written reguest was needed for our records. Please be advised that a written request is not needed at this time, letter in our files is sufficient. A copy of this Please contact me if you need additional assistance. Sincerely r Sterling Ingram, Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation cc: Ruth Steele James Jennings bjg 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Little Rock School District August 27, 1991 RECEIVED Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building AUG 2 8 1991 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregaticn lioring Dear Mrs. Brown: We are enclosing the third administration summary report of the 1991 Arkansas Minimum Performance Test. This is in addition to test information provided to you on August 21, 1991. If I can answer any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Sterling Ingram, Director Planning, Research and Evaluation 324-2124 cc: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent James Jennings, Associate Superintendent bjg 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMARY THIRD ADMINISTRATION 19 9 1 *NUMBER INC. SCHOOL/IN SUMMARY TOTAL TEST PASSING SCORE = ____________STUDENTS FAILING 4204 STUDENTS PASSING BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL CLOVERDALE/219 Number Percent 193 88 12 46 9 35 4 15 26 12 DUNBAR/152 Number Percent FOREST HEIGHTS/219 Number Percent HENDERSON/295 Number Percent MABELVALE/193 Number Percent MANN/284 Number Percent PULASKI HEIGHTS/223 Number Percent SOUTHWEST/206 Number Percent ELIZ. MITCHELL/5 Number Percent DISTRICT/1796 Number Percent 136 89 197 90 263 89 178 92 276 97 207 93 191 93 2 40 1643 92 8 50 11 50 16 50 9 60 4 50 7 44 6 40 1 33 74 48 5 31 10 46 15 47 5 33 4 50 9 56 9 60 66 43 2 13 2 67 16 11 22 10 32 11 15 8 16 7 15 7 3 60 153 __8 M F 0 M 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 5 3 F 1 6 1 5 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 M 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 *The number included in this summary has been revised to reflect students moving into and out of the district since the first and second administrations.O' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: November 22, 1991 To: Ann Brown Office of Deseiggrreeggaattiioo:n Monitoring From: sterling Ingra: itor Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: Test Scores Incentive Schools As requested today by Polly Ramer, we are providing Metropolitan Achievement Test results by race and gender for each of the incentive schools. If you have questions, please feel free to contact this office. bjg GnADE/nftCE iruHLirii TKSYKO J TOT/.T* W D 2 TOTAL II W o 1 TOTAL h W o 1 TOl'Al. n w 0 5 TOTAL D y o 6 TQTAI^ 8 W 0 7 7'lZJ AL II H O 8 TOTAL w o 9 Tar.M, 0 w o m TOTAL h If o J 1 TOTAl. n H 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANHIHC, RESRARCir AHO EVALVZiTIDH STANFORD ACHlKVBMEirT TEST\nEIGIITK EDITION MATlOriAI. PP^CRMTILr RAHK/KORMAL CURVE KQUIVAI.KHT SCORES (PR/NCR) UlSl'RIGTWIDE aUHMARY 1992 EMVlROHMEMT* TOTAL HEAODIC TOTAL r4ATHRHATICS LArrctmoE BCICHCE SOCIAL tJClEHC*: /*SIC nATj'Env COMPLETE  n/iTTERV 269 4 1330 697 24 1883 1)73 67 2 28 170 3 1 131 632 IC 1867 L211 632 23 1922 1200 612 22 184 J 1709 609 25 1694 1122 050 31 1 57,7 1060 493 19 15114 995 53 6 23 1602 949 609 4 1 .3 4 72 B25 612 3 5 12/45,8 35/41,9 63/37,(1 66/58,0 4fl/49.0 4Q/44.6 70/CJU 74/63,3 41/45.1 32/40.2 63/57.2 66/60.1 37/43.9* 27/37,3 S9/55.0 49/49.5 45/47.5 36/42,4 67/59.5 74/63,5 39/44.0 31/39,5 64/57,0 67/59.1 O 30/44.1 29/38.1 02/55,3 57/56.9 39/44.2 27/36.9 63/57.0 57/53.5 44/47,0 33/40.9 67/59,2 60/55.4 38/43.3 26/36.6 63/56,8 58/54.1 60/49.9 37/42,0 74/63.6 67/59.2 12/ 5 31/39.3 70/61.0 72/62,2 41/45,2 29/.nO-S 6//59,4 73/62.6 44/46.6 30/39.2 08/60,1 63/57.2 49/49,2 35/-ll.n 72/62.3 64/57.4 50/49.8 34/41.4 69/60.7 66/58.4 57/53,8 46/47,7 77/69.6 07/73.6 *'/49.7 59/43.9 70/60.9 64/57.4 43/46,3* 32/40.0 65/5n,0 O7/59 3 45/47.4 34/41.3 69/60.3 73/61.6 45/47.3 33/40.8 70/C1.2 74/63.5 C I 50/54.1 46/47.8 76/65,1 00/68.0 50/50.D 38/43.6 70/60.9 68/59,6 43/46.1 30/30.0 67/59.1 63/57,1 46/40.0 35/43.6 67/59.2 61/55,9 49/49.2 36/42.4 70/61.1 69/60.4 47/48.2 34/41.0 70/61.0 68/51.7 57/53.9 43/49.2 73/63.0 76/05.1 46/47.6 35/42.1 05/50.0 64/57.4 46/47.6 34/41.5 68/60.0 66/58.7 4Q/4*J.O 38/43.S GB/59.7 69/G0.3 48/45,0 3A/43.6 68/59.7 67/53.0 47/48.2 36/42,2 60/60.0 67/59.0 53/51,7 43/46,5 71/61,9 03/69.9 48/48.7 38/43.7 67/59.1 66/50.7 45/47.4 33/40,6 70/61.2 74/63.6 46/48.1 37/43.1 65/58.2 70/60.0 44/46.0 34/41.1 65/58.3 71/61.5 44/46.7 32/40.4 67/59.2 72/63,4 57/53.0 48/49.7 74/63.3 75/64.3 51/50.3 41/45.4 68/59.9 64/57.7 54/52.0 43/46.0 74/63,5 75/64.0 59/54.5 49/49.0 76/65.0 72/62.0 54/52.1 43/4C.4 73/63.1 72/62.2 54/52.1 43/46.0 75/64.0 73/62.6 45/47,4 36/42,2 64/57,3 75/64.3 39/1UO  n/lB.IJ 9/54.7 07/73.C 34/41.2 23/34,1 57/53.9 68/59.6 37/43.2 26/36.7 56/53,1 58/54.n 43/46.5 32/40,1 59 / 54,6 62/56.4 43/46,1 33/40,7 64/57.7 70/61.1 42/45,6 31/39,7 6S/S7.9 75/64-5 47/40.6 35/42.1 72/62,0 80/67.8 46/47.9 '35/41.7 69/60,6 75/64,5 46/47.7 33/40.9 71/61.5 70/66.0 o O o tO/49.1 Jn/\u0026lt;13.6 G0/GO.7 E1/GB.5 45/47.4 34/43,3 CB/60,1 77/65,7 46/40.0 34/41.3 72/62.1 63/70.0 43/46.2 32/40.0 66/5B,6 04/71.2 43/4G.1 30/39.2 60/59.0 86/72.6 cn 54/51.9 42/45.9 73/63,0 69/60.6 50/50,2 38/43,4 72/62.5 69/60.7 49/49.6 36/42.5 73/62,6 71/61.4 47/40,2 34/41.I 70/61,0 71/61.7 48/48.8 34/41,1 73/62.6 73/62.9 47/40.6 31/41.5 68/60.0 59/54.6 45/47.3 32/39.8 67/59.D 64/57.3 43/46.2 30/36.7 66/58.4 57/53,8 47/48,4 34/4 1.2 6B/60.1 64/57.7 47/48.5 3?/4O,4 70/61.2 65/58.2 40/49.1 35/41,9 66/50.S 61/56,1 32/40.2 fin/[i9.7 SQ/54.4 Sl/50.6 36/42.7 69/60-7 72/62.3 * At O.TdoH 1 nnd 2 tliD .SCIENCE nnti SOCIAL.SCIENCE objoctlvos aro comblnad .ind rnflortrid nii ceorts uinicr EWVIROPMEUT. 51/50.4 36/42.3  70/60,9 69/60.S Sl/90,4 34/41.3 72/62.1 7O/61\u0026lt;D li O oSCHOQI./MO. TESTEO* saazEBEftiiEzm Humber _ Peroent ssaiBABma Humbar --------Eaiaant LITTLE HOCK SCHOOL DISl'RICT Pr^KHIttB, RESBWICIt, AHD EVALUATIOll ARKANSAS dlNIMUH PERFORMZiNCB TEST GRADE EIGRT SUKHARV third adhihistratioh 19 9 3 ----ISTAb TEST PflSaiKS-'^RE c, 4304 STlfDEHTS ____ PASSIRQ __ DUCK gWi\u0026gt;E.KTB FA I LIMO LtKI Tnr\u0026gt; -_____ K WfllTB . A OTHER Z. J^OIidL . aeuagL/Ho. tested* ailEa3AJEIiiJ[I5/221 Humber UllSEBSa)lZ213 Humber laiDELyALEzua Hiinbor Pprcowt H\u0026amp;lUf/lSi Humber ------Pgroaht raiAEKIABISHlS/Jll Humber flO5TFIWF.ST/t94 Rinahor ______RSLEflflI lIlA_niTHELC4Z2 Humber --------Ea2SHt_____ limiAeLE POINTMl Rumbsr ---------Eaxaant______ CISlEl 1/1162 Humbor _____- Paroei 154 _2i 201 -AA 115 SA 214 BA lai SA 234 _2A 2il\u0026gt; ----------Ifi____ ISfi ___52- A AA 31 1525 ___SA 12 AA 12 AA 24 25, 14 -lA 12 JI A .41- 14 -5A 20 59 A 0 ii 121 _SA * The number of students tested lias Into and out of the district i special education students Qdnij.i)iatraklefk fiummary. 13 -12 A -21 A 25 IS -.-S2_ 12 43 11 II -12 ~0 A ___0 A. 3A -A lA _1 100 A 12 Al .11 .3 A. A 0 ii A A. A 21 IS 0 A. _a -A A_ _a A. A -A A A_ A _A _3 A A -A 32 A -A A' -i_ A -A 31 lA fiisyBiiEjUiEZiia tlUDbsr Patoont A A 25 Al_ liHHUABZm Hunber JL ~o 32 -lA FOREST HElnilTH/21A Nunbor _6 _A_ A -A 25 18___ UEamaotf/ui Hun.bnr __- Peroant A A A A- A -A A -A -12. Zi_ A A A -A A -A A -A A -A A A _A 25 JA 22 9 2J 10 34 -la___ ii. A -Al 235 A3_ tevlsed to reflect studenta movinc since the second adininlstraticn and to exclude 10 inav hava hn^n a-,.. ' uxeauao . --------  KILAa UAUI vho may havo been includod In the second BiaEurALBZua Rtlinber -- Percent MAHH/273 Humber ______Paroenl PULASKT HEIgKTS/?2fl Riunbec Pnroant:  sflimniEaiziaa Humber 5mAIITCIIEl.r./9 Humbar ---------latoent  EtUHACl.B POIHT/S  Humber _____Percent_____ DISTniCT/1779 Humber ______Peroent l.ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PWRHINQ, RESEAHCri, AHI) EVAUJATIOH ARKAHSAS MtHIMUH PERFOIIHAlfCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMARY THIRD ADHIHISTRATIOH 19 9 2 BTUDEHTS isaiiL ISA 90 222 ____SA iSi -AA 122 - Bj 153 -AA 251 A4. 2S2 _AA 152 -AA A IS. Ji 1555 __BA to co o CD iffioUt.TES'C-jasauffi^coRE 4204 1-lU- SLACK 10 Ai_ IS -SA 21 -SA 12 5B JL AA_. 19 in 15 Al 0 IOS -SS- F 10 AS Ji 12 ii AA- -15- A S8 15 -iL JA A 2A SS AA ejWBEHTB EAIUUg___ JI KKITE i JI OTHER o _IS1AL_ 0 10 0 0 A -U. Q 0 2 A _2 54- ii 11 -5. A -i_ JA 0 0 1 A 0 0 A -14. _2i_ _1 AA 12 -A- 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 _a o 0 a 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 _a 0 21 -IS 20 0 32 -H 32 AA 22 .11 IS -A 26 Ak 32 AA Ai JAai_. 225 18 (Into Olid out of the diatriot aiiino^hn^T to rntlect students moving apoolnl Bducatlon otudonte who may hava hm '''\"'^olstratlon and to oxolude\nadministration sumnary? inoludsd In the socond I t3 Dl O to tJ \u0026gt;c 50 o\u0026gt; o C3- o o O) IS o oijJ. I i LiE. KUtA OC-ilUUlj UXJj TKX^- T PLAHNIWG, RES15AKCH AND EVALUATION EXHIBIT 2 A ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST PERCENT OF STUDENTS PASSING FIVE YEAR COMPARISON 1909-1993 \\   I I 1 I ALL STUDENTS GRADE SUBJECT '09 '90 '91 '92 '93 ' 89 BLACK STUDEN' ' 90 '91 '92 '93 '09 WliITE_STU DENTS__ '90 '91 ' 92 '93 ' 09 OTHER STUDENTS ' 90 '91 '92 '93 i\u0026gt; 3 6 8 0 READING MATH READING MATH LANGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES READING MATH rj^NGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES TOTAL TEST * 86 89 88 09 75 66 70 90 89 85 67 74 91 07 87 90 90 77 72 77 09 8 7 84 74 75 91 87 87 94 90 70 73 73 07 84 02 63 63 92 08 91 92 89 77 75 74 05 06 01 62 66 00 86 88 91 80 7 6 80 76 86 03 80 63 67 82 06 8 4 86 60 56 60 86 06 79 55 65 83 82 07 88 70 62 '69 05 83 79 64 68 02 83 92 88 71 64 65 02 79 76 SO 54 02 0 7 09 06 70 67 66 79 81 75 52 57 81 83 07 84 70 73 69 02 70 75 51 58 * TOTAL TEST SCORE AFTER THIRD ADMINISTRATION EACH YEAR. 96 97 96 95 89 86 09 90 97 97 09 91 95 95 97 96 92 92 94 98 97 93 93 91 95 94 90 95 90 90 09 97 95 94 08 01 90 97 90 95 90 90 09 97 95 92 85 04 96 96 99 94 90 95 91 95 92 91 07 05 70 83 96 96 80 05 80 90 80 70 70 83 95 90 95 95 06 82 9 5 08 93 00 03 01 96 91 100 97 90 07 90 9 0 90 02 70 70 96 96 94 91 85 00 05 97 92 06 01 01 06 91 95 9 2 92 02 02 02 77 79 69 74 I |! .h I1 ,a r w Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE October 7 1992 For more informations Dianne Woodruff,\n020 J LR5D ACT AND SAT SCORES RELEASED Better ACT and SAT scores were aligned with those Little Rock School District students who had taken advanced placement and honors t jurses in addition to their regularly required core courses. Students who took honors classes scored much better on the SAT on the average than the mean scores for all students. Of the 315 students who took the SAT, 212 C677.3 had taken honors English and 152 t.4SZ.') had taken honors mathematics c our ses. \"These test summaries support the belief that student will do better on tests if they take advanced placement and s honors level courses,\" said Mac Bernd, super intendent. Although LRSD offers more advanced placement course than other districts, as part of our emphasis on academic achievement were working towards offering even more advanced placement courses, If Bernd added. II In terms of the disparity among blacks and whites. we can see that getting students into advanced placement c1 asses could really help their achievement levels, If Bernd said. (MORE) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ^(Sonag^MoooLRSD ACT and SAT Page 2 scores \"We must work to prepare al 1 our students to quali fy for, enrol 1 in and complete the more advanced and challenging advanced placement c ourses,\" said Bernd. Recently released SAT and ACT scores for the 19'31-92 school year show a variety of statistical information that compares LRSD students to other Arkansas district scores and to the National averages. Both tests are administered several times throughout the school year and are summarized at the end of the testing period. The tests measure verbal and mathematical reasoning skills, developed over many years of education. that are related to academic performance in college. The ACT exam was administered to 1,101 LRSD students, while 315 students took the SAT exam. The ACT test summary shows an increase in overall composite scores from 1990-91 to 1991-92 for LRSD students. English. mathematics and science reasoning all had increased sc or es. The reading score did not change over the two-year period. Parkview Magnet School students c jmposite scores wer ea better than Arkansas and National composite scores. Students from Fair, Hal 1, McClellan and Parkview Magnet had higher composite scores in 1991-92 than in the 1990-91 school year. CMOREjLRSD ACT and SAT Scores Page 3 In comparing 13'31 and 1'3'32 ACT composi'fcB scores for black and white students, the black pupil composite remained stable at 17 i while the white student composite score increased slightly from 21.'2 in 1'3'31 to 21.7 in 1'3'32. Although LRSD students did not score as high on the SAT test in the verbal \u0026lt;453) and mathematics \u0026lt;48'3) areas as in the previous year, the 1'3'32 mean scores for LRSD students were substantially higher than the National Average scores of 41 verbal and 47S mathematics. Fair High School students scored higher on the SAT than the Arkansas and National average in mathematics. In comparing black and white students. LRSD, Ar kansas and National white students scored higher on the average on the verbal and mathematics sections than black students. Note: A detailed summary which includes national. school comparisons will be mailed state and LRSD upon request.u 10/07/92 16:27 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @001/004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 DATE (Qc. TO FROM 7 SENDER'S PHONE# SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of Pages (include cover page) Fax Phone Number Speed dial FOR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE USE ONLY Transmitted By Date Time . RECEIVED TO: Mrs. Janet Bernard, Associate Superintendent FROMz'^a. Mr. Robert L. Brown, Jr. DATE: May 16, 1993 MAY 1 3 1993 SUBJ: Oitica of Dossgregation Mcnitoring AMPT Test Summary/Six Years I am providing you with the results of Garland's sixth grade (Black male)student performance over a six year period. The results from 1988 -1991 reflect the progress of Black male students under the instructional leadership of another principal. Particular focus on Black males is being used because of the enormous gender disparity in performance between black students. Detailed results of the performance of Black male students from 1988 to 1993 can be obtained from the office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. The results in reading are being provided for you because they are the single most important predictor of future success in educational attainment. The District Summary results are being used as a standard to normalize the results at Garland. READING 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 District Summary Percent Passed Garland School Percent Passed Difference 78 79 84 88 86 84 73 -5 47 -32 80 -4 77 -11 91 +5 95 +11 The major difference in the variables impacting the results for the last two year has been the emphasis placed on culturally specific content in the school's curriculum. The students at Garland School, in grades 4 through 6, responded to this statement \"African-African American History is taught in this school\", on the Incentive School Student Survey with 80% favorable response as \"ALWAYS\". When the outcomes of the MPT performance in Reading and Math were shared with the sixth grade students, they were asked to explain the cause of the difference. They responded by saying that school was about them. They learned a lot about Africa and African Americans. When you compare the District Summary with Garland's progress for the same period. you find a significant difference in gains for Black males, uncharacteristic of the performance level during the tenure of another principal. I would like to get on the agenda to share this with the Board of Directors. I am asking your assistance in making this happen. We can close the gap before the year 2000. cc Monitoring Teams05/21/83 14:36 0501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 121002/003 \u0026lt;1 I I Little Rock School District I t NEWS RELEASE May 21,1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RH.FASES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST SCORES Three Little Rock School District schools, Cloverdale and Terry Elementary, both, area schools, and Williams Magnet Elementary achieved 85% I mastery of the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test in all areas in all grade levels. Six additional schools achieved mastery in all subject areas except one  in aU grade levels except one. The schools are McDermott, Jefferson and Woodruff area elementary schools and Carver Magnet, Ish Incentive and Romine Interdistrict elementary schools. j I 1 The seven incentive elementary schools improved as a group and are 1 making progress, especially at the 6th grade level. Rightsell Incentive I I i Elementary students in grade three and six improved in six of the seven areas of testing. Mitchell Incentive Elementary and Stephens Incentive Elementary improved in all areas in grade six. Rockefeller Incentive Elementary I I I improved overall in grade three. The Districts Magnet Schools continue to score at or near the 85% passage requirements in all grades and areas tested. (MORE) fin iaMteAMia05/21/93 14:36 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @003/003 I LRSD MPT Tests-1993/94 Page 2 The district-wide passing rate for Sth grade students is seventy-eight percent which is one percentage point higher that the 1992 school year passing rate. The increased passing rate indicates continued growth in Little Rock School District student's mastery levels. ### I i i i ( I ireceived t JAH OHse o5 Dsesesi^' .MpPi-pnCiS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Date: January 4, 1994 To: From: Margie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Sterling Ingra^^Director Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: Arkansas Minimum Performance Test, 1993 As requested in your telephone call today, we are enclosing copies of the school summary reports for the 1993 Arkansas MPT. If we can provide any additional information, please let me know. bjg cc: Jerry Malone P 1 4 1 t JRECEIVED AUG 2 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT DATE: August 18, 1994 TO: Ms. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: r. Robert Glowers RE: 1993-94 Stanford Achievement Test Results Please find enclosed results of the 1993-94 administration of the SAT-8 test for the Little Rock School District. Enclosed are districtwide and individual school reports disaggregated by ethnicity. One report provides a three year trend of the test administration giving the basic and complete battery score results. The second report provides subject area results along with basic and complete battery scores for the 1993-94 school year. Please let me know if you have any questions. Enclosure cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent 08/31/94 13:36 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst 002 5-- C3X Little Rock School District August 31, 1994 RECEIVED TO\nFROM\nMargie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring Or. Robert dowers. Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation SUBJECT\nAUG 3 11994 0ffiC3 of !9 Stanford-8 Results for Incentive Schools, 1991-92 As per your request, please find attached copies of the Stanford-8 Test results for the Incentive Schools by Subject area/Race for the 1991-92 school year. If I can be of further assistance, please contact iny office. dge Attachmentco o o s LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION (A C5 STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTII.E RANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o Xi o (/3 a SCHOOL\nFRANKLIN ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE HUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM CO o C'l CM CO o IO 3 co co 05 co co* o 1 TOTAt, B W O 2 TOTAL B H O 3 TOTAL B H O 4 TOTAL B W O 5 TOTAL B H O 6 TOTAL B W O 70 64 6 63 60 3 60 55 5 39 37 2 56 50 4 2 55 51 4 25/35.5 25/35.5 26/36.2 26/36.3 25/35.8 35/41.6 19/31.5 18/30.8 30/38.8 28/37.9 26/36.4 58/54.0 25/36.0 25/35.5 33/40.8 21/32.8 19/31.3 48/48.8 19/31.5 18/30.4 59/54.5 17/29.5 16/28.6 31/39.3 25/35.6 23/34.6 75/64.4 15/28.5 14/27.1 18/30.9 66/58.6 30/38.8 28/37.5 62/56.2 35/41.9 35/41.6 47/48.4 29/38.3 27/37.0 56/53.0 31/39.4 27/36.9 97/89.6 28/37.6 26/36.7 24/35.4 74/63.8 36/42.7 34/41.3 69/60.6 27/36.9 26/36.2 51/50.7 25/36.0 23/34.5 79/66.9 25/35.6 24/34.8 56/52.9 23/34.1 21/33.1 59/54.9 27/37.0 26/36.1 46/48.0 24/34.9 21/33.0 85/71.4 28/37.5 25/35.9 34/41.0 86/72.7 38/43.3 36/42.5 57/53.8 18/30.8 16/29.0 50/50.1 18/30.9 19/31.2 81/68.2 23/34.2 22/33.5 13/26.6 77/65.8 39/43.9 37/43.1 59/54.8  At Grsdcs 1 and a the SCIENCE and SOCIAI. SCIENCE objootivos are combined and reflected as one score unde EWVinoNHENT. 23/34.2 21/33.0 45/4 7..3 23/34.1 21/33.0 43/46.2 20/32.1 18/30.9 42/45.9 28/37.8 26/36.7 68/59.6 26/36.2 24/35.3 19/31.2 81/68.2 43/46.0 41/45.0 66/58.9 26/36.1 25/35.8 89/76.2 21/33.0 19/31.7 21/32.8 77/65.2 36/42.7 34/41.4 66/58.4 23/34.1 22/33.8 89/75.5 20/32.3 19/31.1 18/30.4 78/66.3 36/42.3 34/41.0 67/59.2o [l Liri'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PIJVNNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION U) n STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o X3 U cn Of SCHOOL: GARI^ND ELEHENTARY EMVIROHHENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM ec o CM CM CC o ira 3 n ec X 00  o _1 _TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL B N O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B H O J2_._ 32 29 26 3 28 28 31 30 1 35 35 62 62 ** At Grades 1 -_-62/_6S--5- -31/39.7-- 31/39.7 - -29/38,^-- 29/38.5 -20/32t1 20/32.1 -------35/Al-r$h 35/61.9 -26/36^1----- 26/36.1 19/31.8 17/29.7 51/50.7 32/60.3 29/38.6 65/58.3 25/35.9 23/36.5 68/60.7 25/35.7 21/33.3 65/58.3 21/33.1 18/30.8 55/52.8 26/36.2 23/36.1 58/56.2 12/25.6 12/25.6 29/38.5 29/38.5 26/35.0 26/35.0 20/32.0 20/32.0 22/33.9 22/33.9 19/31.2 19/31.2 17/30.0 17/30.0 23/35.1 43/46.3 23/36.3 23/36.3 27/37.2 27/37.2 39/66.3 38/43,7 69/60,4 29/38.1 28/37.9 43/46.3 26/36.7 26/36.2 54/52.1 36/61.5 33/40.9 69/60.4 28/37.7  28/37.6 49/49,5 26/36.6 20/37.9 51/50.5 30/63.8 38/63.8 63/66.6 63/66.6 and z the ecIBNCE and flocIAL 32/60.0 32/60.0 39/66.3 39/66.3 SCIENCE objectives 30/38.7 30/38.7 31/39.5 31/39.5 29/38.3 29/38.3 28/37.6 28/37.6 39/63.9 39/63.9 67/68.5 67/68.5 39/63.9 39/63.9 38/63.5 38/63.5IO o o Ka.'S LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PIANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION CA o STANFORD ACIIIEVFJIENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o 4= O CZ5 0 SCHOOL: H1TCHEI.L ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY cv n o CM CM CC o IO \u0026amp; co cc 03 cc 00, o _ 1 TOTAL B H O 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL B W o 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 40...... 38 2 32/40.1 31/39.6 49/49.6 30/39.1 30/38.7 43/46.3 30,38.8 29/38.4 44/47.0 21/33.9 - 20/31.9 55/52.6 __.ie'it -31/39.5- - 30/38.8 54/52.1 26/36.3  25/35.6 49/49.4 43 41 2 39 35 3 1 41 38 ,3 24 23 1 38 38 20/32.0 21/32.9 4/13.8 25/35.9 23/34.1 58/54.4 42/45.8 26/36.3 26/36.2 26/36.5 27/37.1 26/36.4 55/52.6 29/38.3 29/38.3 At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE are combined and rrt F 1 48/49.0 49/49.5 31/39.6 31/39.7 32/40.0 21/33.0 26/36.3 25/35.6 52/50.9 29/30.6 30/39.2 12/25.3 26/36.2 26/36.7 12/25.2 46/40.1 44/47.0 73/62.9 43/46.3 34/41.3 31/39.5 75/64.2 26/36,.5 29/38.2 25/35.7 71/61.5 65/58.1 42/4 5.9 39/44.1 78/65.9 49/49.5 32/40.0 28/37.9 73/62.6 40/44.7 30/39.2 27/37.1 71/61.8 42/45.8 37/42.8 37/42.9 34/41.3 56/53.1 56.53.4 44/46.8 42/45.9 42/45.9 25/35.9 25/35.7 29/38.3 26/36.7 26/36.5 30/39.1 29/38.2 29/38.2 28/37.7 29/38.2 34/41.3 30/39.0 26/36.7 29/38.2 28/37.5 43/46.3 40/44.7 94/82.7 33/40.9 33/40.9 and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives 35/41.6 34/41.0 66/58.7 50/49.8 49/49.6 59/54.8 42/45.6 41/45.0 67/59.3 42/45.5 40/44.9 67/59.3 43/46.2 43/46.2 39/44.2 39/44.2 36/42.6 36/42.6 36/42.2 36/42.2co o o s LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ce Q STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE HANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o 3 O W o: SCHOOL: RIGHTSEIX ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM CD CM CM CO O1 co co OJ co \\ co * o 1 TOTAL B ' V O 2 TOTAL B H O 3 TOTAL B W 0 4 TOTAL n H O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O - 39- 38 33 32 38 37 33 33 62 62 33 33 *'63/66.2 63/66.5 '*56/67.9\" 66/68.0 32/60.6' 33/60.3 25/35.9' 26/36.2 60/66.7 61/65.0 39/66.0 60/66.6 65/67.1 65/67.2 32/60.2 32/39.9 53/51.6 26/36.2 26/36.2 21/33.1 21/33.1 36/61 .0 36/61.0 71/61.5 70/61.0 66/68.1 65/67.1 95/86.6 53/51.6 53/51.6 69/69.5 69/69.5 66/58.7 66/58.7 66/66.9 65/67.2 57/53.8 57/53.8 58/56.1 58/56.1 62/65.7 61/65.0 86/70.9 37/62.8 37/62.8 37/63.1 37/63.1 62/65.6 62/65.6 26/35.2 23/36.7 56/53.2 26/35.1 27/37.2 28/37.9 28/37.9 36/62.3 36/62.3 30/38.8 29/38.6 55/52.6 31/39.6 31/39.6 37/63.2 37/63.2 61/65.2 61/65.2 38/63.8 38/63.3 75/66.2 . 36/62.6 39/66.2 30/38.8 30/38.8 63/66.0 63/66.0 36/61.5 36/61.0 73/62.9 32/60.1 35/61.9 29/38.6 29/38.6 60/66.6 60/66.6 o lO 3 1 ** At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIEJtCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE obioctivo aro combined and reflnnl-od 13o s LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ) o STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o .c o tn q: SCHOOL: ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM O CM CM O to ei o co a\u0026gt; 00 J o --1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B M O 4 TOTAL B W o 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B H O - 62----- 41 20 1 - 42/45\n8 - 52/51.0 64/57.5 -30/3071  45/47.1 61/56.0 59/54.8 51750 .'3----- 46/47.8 59/54.8 70/61.0 33/40-.3!.... 26/36.7 49/49.3 35/41.9 46/48.1 41/45.1 57/53.6 68/59.9 42/45.5 37/42.8 51/50.7 63/57.0 41 29 10 2 39 26 12 1 38 33 5 38 32 5 1 36 27 9  At Grades 1 and 20/37.8 23/34.6 43/46.3 34/41.0 42/45.9 38/43.5 56/52.9 40/44.6 44/46.9 38/43.5 58/54.0 68/59.6 30/38.9 23/34.2 54/52.2 26/36.7 31/39.8 25/36.0 51/50.3 36/42.4 30/39.2 24/34.8 53/51.3 35/41.8 20/32.2 13/26.0 38/43.8 69/60.4 36/42.7 33/40.5 43/46.4 67/59.3 35/41.6 26/36.4 54/52.1 63/57.0 20/31.9 16/29.4 24/34.9 61/55.9 27/37.2 22/33.9 38/43.3 38/43.6 28/37.6 21/33.2 41/45.2 66/58.7 25/35.7 18/31.0 39/44.0 63/57.0 29/38.4 28/ 37.6 38/43.4 30/39.2 28/38.0 39/44.0 55/52.6 37/42.9 32/40.3 53/51.6 38/43.4 36/42.3 51/50.5 49/49.7 46/47.7 71/61.4 63/57.0 48/48.7 43/46.1 64/57.3 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL 25/35.6 23/34.5 41/45.3 26/36.7 28/37.6 41/45.2 31/39,3 27/37.0 58/54.3 28/37.8 29/38.6 40/44.4 26/36.3 27/36.8 41/45.1 41/45.1 36/42.6 63/56.9 75/64.2 43/46.2 38/43.8 66/58.8 66/58.7 34/41.0 32/40.0 40/44.6 59/54.8 36/42.4 33/40.7 52/50.9 62/56.4 35/41.8 32/40.0 52/51.0 62/56.4 38/43.8 34/41.1 55/52.7 48/49.0 45/47.3 58/54.2 56/53.4 50/49.9 75/64.1 45/47.4 40/44.9 59/54.9 45/47.5 40/44.8 61/55.7 SCTEHPP nh-i oci-00 o o LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PliANNlNG, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION U) Q STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o 43 O tn os SCHOOL: STEPHENS ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY -----1 TOTAL D W O 38- 37 1 22/3i-.%  22/33.8 23/34.4  42/5-r5-  41/45.4 52/51.1 -35/41.-8 - 35/41.6 53/51.6 -23/34T5- 23/3ii.l th tn .2 31/39. 6 ' 31/39.6 35/41.9 75735.-3 - 24/35.2 25/35.8 C-l n o CM CM CO o 1(5 63 n Oi co OO \u0026gt; 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 32 32 21 21 2 2 39 39 30 28 1 1 At Grados 1 27/37.3 27/37.3 20/32.6 20/32.6 24/35.4 30/39.2. 17/30.2 17/30.2 33/40.9 . 29/38.2 73/62.9 98/93.3 26/36.2 26/36.2 43/46.1 43/46.1 34/41.4 34/41.4 35/42.0 35/42.0 40/44.9 35/41.6 94/32.7 99/99.0 33/40.5 33/40.5 35/42.0 35/42.0 38/43.6 38/43.6 34/41.3 34/41.3 37/42.9 35/42.0 33/40.7 84/70.9 and 2 the ECIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE obloctivas 24/35.2 24/35.2 23/3^.5 29/38.5 27/36.8 27/36.8 32/40.4 38/43.3 34/41.4 54/52.1 97/89.6 21/33.3 21/33.3 22/34.0 22/34.0 36/42.3 36/42.3 33/40.5 33/40.5 31/39.7 31/39.7 35/41.9 35/41.9 32/40.2 32/40.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 42/45.5 37/42.9 89/75.8 96/86.9 36/42.3 31/39.7 98/93.3 35/41.8 30/39.2 76/64.9 98/93.309/07/95 ! i I 13:29 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI ODM @002/002 i i mn V J. I Little Rock School District I 1 f i t i Media Advisory PREPARATIONS FOR STANFORD 8 TESTING I i September 7,1995 f I I For more information\nDina Teague, 324-2020 Friday, September 8,1:30 - 2:00 p.m. Stanford 8 testing begins around the state on Monday and students at Otter Creek Elementary School will get ready at a Test Buster Assembly in their cafeteria. One student will dress as Rocky (the boxer) and will \"challenge\" the test. ### I I ! I09/11/95  10:15 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI ODM 002/002 f' Little Rock School District Media Advisory I ( I } i i I i i I 1 September 11,1995 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 No special events are scheduled for students in the Little Rock School District this week while Stanford 8 Tests are being administered. ! Thursday, September 14, 5:00 p.m. The LRSD Board of Directors will hold their regular monthly agenda meeting. I I 1 ### 1 I I 1 I I ( f i ! 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 78201  (5011324-2000c\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation NOV 2 2 1995 of Desegregation f^Ol'IiiOfiiig MEMORANDUM Date: November 21, 1995 To: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation Subject: 1994-95 Stanford Eight Achievement Test Annual Report C^cc Please find enclosed your personal copy of the 1994-95 Stanford Eight Achievement Test Annual Report. Also enclosed are copies for distribution to the Board members. If 1 can be of further assistance, please call me. Enclosure cc: LRSD Board Members Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Joshua Intervenors John Walker, Attorney ^Office of Desegregation MonitoringI'l/i h Dra ^T^sr Tt. 'ry (tz. ** Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation MEMORANDUIVI RECiSVED DEC 1 5 1995 J\nOffice of Dssegiegauon Munuwuiy TO: Ann Brown. Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director RE: Revised Stanford Achievement Test Results: Historical Comparisons DATE: December 12,1995 h bra t'y - An error occurred during the processing of the comparative data report causing the scores for five schools (Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, Mitchell, McDermott, and Martin L. King) to be interchanged. The results affect these schools only. All other data, to include other school and district totals, remain the same. Please replace previously received data with the attached revised version. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Lacey, Testing Coordinator or myself at 324-2120. Attachment a: e?ved N 1995 CKffiBB Little Rock School District Office ol Desegregation December 8. 1995 Monitoring MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director vl Planning, Research, and Ev^uation Tl.'k I'x RE: 1995 Stanford Achievement Test Results Cop'd /I'bi-a 'LX t Please find enclosed results of the Fall 1995 administration of the SAT-8 test for the Little Rock School District. Enclosed are districtwide and individual school reports disaggregated by ethnicity. One report provides a four year trend of the test administration giving the basic and Complete Battery score results. The second report provides subject area results along with Basic and Complete Battery scores for the Fall 1995 school year. Please let me know if you have any questions. Enclosure cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000c: /tlrye. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation RECEiV''n FEB 8 1996 3 MEMORANDUM FROM: RE: January 25, 1996 Superintendents Cabinet Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Insert for SAT-8 Annual Report Office of Deseflregation Monuoii htg Please see attached SAT-8 Annual Report pages 7 and 8. If your document is missing these pages, please insert. We regret the inconvenience. cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams LRSD Board Members Arm Brown, ODM John Walker, Attorney Magnet School Review 1O-.8 (2, 4, 6, 9, and 10) scored average or above\nin 1994, eight grades (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) scored above the national average, and for 1995 six grades (2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9) scored at or above the national average. Grade 6 and 9 have remained above the national average for each years results. Fifth grade students in 1994 scored at the 56th percentile which equalled grades 4, 5, and 6 in 1995. 4.1.6 Science Five grade levels (2, 4, 5, 6, and 9) scored at or above the 50th percentile in science on the Stanford Eight in 1995. Only grades 4, 5, and 6 scored at or above the 50th percentile for the 1994 administration. In 1993 grades 4 and 6 exceeded the national average while in 1992 grades 6 and 9 scored average or above. 4.1.7 Social Science The 1994 social science data show that five of die nine grades levels tested (3, 4, 5, 6, and 10) scored above the national average. Grade 4 achieved the highest percentile rank in social science. In 1993, grades 4, 5, and 6\nand in 1992, grades 6 and 11 scored above the average national percentile. In a review of the 1995 data only 9 grades 4, 5, 6, and 10 exceeded the average national percentile (See Exhibits 1-6). 4.1.8 Highest Performance The national percentile ranks for grade 6 were at or above the national average in every subject area for all administrations (1992 through 1995), and grade 4 was above average in every subject area except reading (See Exhibits 1-6). 4.1.9 Analysis of Test Data for Elementary Students The Group Skills Analysis with Objectives Performance reports presents summary information for a class, school or district. This analysis provides a summary of the groups performance on the \"Content Clusters.\" Below average (BA) refers to the bottom 23 % of the reference group\nAverage (A), to the middle 54%\nand Above Average (AA), to the top 23%. These performance categories are especially helpful when identifying strengths and needs within content areas. This report, as well as other alternative assessments, assists the schools instructional leaders and staff when reviewing curriculum and setting priorities for instruction.Grade all Sheet 1 Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) Scores by Elementary Schools compared Io Total District Scores - Complete Battery [ School Name Williams (magnet) Carver (magnet) Icioverdale Romine (interdist) iGibbs (magnet) Western Hills I Rightsell (incent) Terry I King (interdistrict) Otter Creek I McDermott Rockefeller (incent) I Booker (magnet) Wilson I Fulbright Watson I Pulaski Heights Brady I Wakefield Washington (Inter) I Woodruff Forest Park I Bale Geyer Springs I Meadowcliff Dodd I Jefferson Fair Park iGarland (incent) Mabelvale I Chicot Baseline I Badgett Mitchell (Incent) I Frankin (incent) School Black 61.5 50 District Black 41.7 41.7 48.48 I 41.7 48.2 47.44 45.28 45.26 45 44.92 43.92 42.58 42 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 41.86 I 41.7 41,84 41.54 41.16 40.9 40.88 40.34 39.88 39.64 39.4 39.06 39 38.4 38.16 37.7 37.64 ,. 37.58 f 37.48 37.34 I 37.22 . 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 1 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 34.96 1 41.7 34.94 31,8 1 41.7 41.7 % diff 147.5% 119.9% 116.3% 115.6% 113.8% 108,6% 108.5% 107.9% 107.7% 105.3% 102.1% 100.7% 100.4% 100.3% 99.6% 98.7% 98.1% 98.0% 96.7% 95.6% 95.1% 94.5% 93.7% 93.5% 92.1% fo 91.5% , 90.4% 90.3% 90.1% 89.9% 89.5% 89.3% 83.8% Sorted by the % difference of School Black Scores to District Black Scores School White 75.58 71.36 I 65.9 49.3 I 69.24 63.96 I 17.3 68.56 I 62.3 61.54 I 66.12 51.38 I 57.98 52.06 I 66.82 48.32 I 68.62 56.68 1 48.78 63.28 I 53.9 75.66 I 53.96 46.2 I 48.76 , 48.76 83.8% 76.3% I 70.66 64.06 0 50.94 49.34 38.64 45.86 52.8 62.4 ZIZ Dlstricf White 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63,32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 % diff 119.4% 112.7% 104.1% 77,9% 109.3% 101.0% 21.3/^ 108.3% 98.4% 104.4% 81.1% 91.6% 82.2% 105.5% 76.3% 108.4% 89.5% 99.9% 85.1% 119.5% 85.2% 73.0% 77.0% 77.0% 111.6% 101.2% 0.0% 80.4% 77.9% 61.0% 72.4% 83.4% 98.5% School Total 68.46 60.86 50.2 49.28 57.16 51.92 45.24 58.4 53.64 54 53.58 45.02 49.34 44.54 54.18 42.44 55.52 45.52 41.52 48.58 45.68 58.08 42.32 40.58 40.98 41.96 57.52 41.84 37.76 42.08 39.56 37.64 37.64 35.24 32.64 Page 1 District Total 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 I % diff 138.6% 123.2% 101.7% I 99.8% 115.8% I 105.1% 91.6% I 118,3% 108.6% I 109.4% 108.5% I 91.2% 99.9% I 90.2% 109.7% I 85.9% 112.4% I 92.2% 84.1% I 3rd Qlr Enrollm't 513 630 454 312 310 318 223 534 557 333 484 402 605 384 520 453 434 389 428 98.4% : 656 92.5% I 117.6%  85.7% I 82.2% I 83.0% 1 85.0% I 116.5% I 84.7%  - I 76.5% I 85.2% I 80.1% I Report date: May 23,1996__ % Black % eligible for free or___% ellgito for reduced Lunch free lunch 241 433 343 320 405 281 506 273 257 448 454 76.2% . 323 76.2% i 71.4% 66.1% I 220 258 455 52.0% 52.0% 85.0% 71.0% 54.0% 66.0% 96.0% 45.0% 54.0% 41.0% 53.0% 64.0% 52.0% 79.0% 49.0% 80.0% 47.0% 63,0% 86 0% 64,0% 67,0% 47,0% 70,0% 75,0% 76,0% 65,0% 42.0% 92.0% 69.0% 76.0% 76.0% 79.0% 97.0% 93.0% 22.4% 33.0% 78.0% 54.5% 39.4% 61.3% 83.0% 28,7% 51,7% 34,8% 41,3% 65,9% 46,9% 73,7% 36,2% 74,8% 43,6% 49,6% 81,1% 63,0% 68.5% 37.0% 74.9% 76.6% 73.3% 66.9% 38.3% 75.5% 94.6% 73.9% 77.3% 81.7% 77.3% 98.5% 86 5% 17.9% 27.0% 69.8% 46.5% 33.5% 54.4% 76.2% 27.2% 43.8% 30.9% 37.6% 59.2% 36.7% 68.0% 31.7% 67.3% 39.2% 43.4% 72.2% 56.7% 61.8% 32.3% 66.4% 65.9% 68.9% 61.9% 36.0% 69.6% 89.9% 64.1% 68.1% 74.3% 74.1% 95.0% 79.8%Sheen Normal Curve Equivalenl (NCE) Scores by Elementary Schools compared to total District Scores-- Complete Battery ~]~ Grade all School Name Forest Park Williams (magnet) ICarver (magnet) Jefferson iGibbs (magnet) Pulaski Haights iTerry Fulbright iMcDermotl Cloverdale I Fair Park Western Hills Iwashington (inter) Frankin (incenl) I King (interdistrict) Otter Creek I Booker (magnet) Brady (Bale Woodruff I Mitchell (incenl) Wilson I Rockefeller (incenl) Mabelvale IChicot Romine (interdist) [Wakefield Dodd I Meadowcliff Watson [Geyer Springs Badgett [Baseline Rightsell (Incent) [Garland (incenl) Sch(X)l Black 39.4 61.5 50 37.7 47.44 40.9 45 41.54 42.58 48.48 37.64 45.28 39.88 31.8 44.92 43.92 41.86 40.88 39.06 39.64 34.94 41.84 42 37.48 37.34 48.2 40.34 38.16 38.4 41.16 I 39 34.96 [ 37.22 45.26 [ 37.58 I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I i District Black 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 % diff 94.5% 147.5% I 119.9% 90.4% ] 113.8% 98.1% 107.9% 99.6% 102.1% 116.3% 90.3% 108 6% 95.6% 76.3% 107.7% 105.3% 100.4% 98.0% 93.7% 95.1% 83.8% 100.3% 100.7% 89.9% 89.5% 115.6% 96.7% 91.5% 92.1% 98.7% 93.5% 83.8% 89.3% 108.5% [ 90.1% I 1 I Sorted by the % difference of School White Scores to District While Scores School While 75.66 75.58 71.36 70.66 69.24 68.62 68.56 66.82 66.12 65.9 64.06 63.96 63.28 62.4 62.3 61.54 57.98 56.68 53.96 53.9 52.8 52.06 51.38 50.94 49.34 49,3 48.78 48.76 48.76 48.32 46.2 45.86 38.64 17.3 0 District While 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 % diff 119.5% 119.4% I 112.7% 111.6% 109.3% 108.4% 108.3% 105.5% 104.4% 104.1% 101.2% 101.0% 99.9% 98.5% 98.4% 97.2% 91.6% 89.5% 85.2% 85.1% 83.4% 82.2% 81.1% 80.4% 77.9% 77.9% 77.0% 77.0% , 77.0% 76.3% 73.0% 72.4% 61.0% 27.3% 0.0% r Schrxjl Total 58.08 68.46 60.86 57.52 57.16 55.52 58.4 54.18 53.58 50.2 41.84 51.92 48.58 32.64 53.64 54 49.34 . 45.52 42.32 45.68 35.24 44.54 45.02 42.08 39.56 49.28 41.52 . 41.96 40.98 42.44 40.58 37.64 37.64 45.24 37.76 Page 1 DisIricI Total 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 % diff 117.6% 138.6% I 123.2% 116.5% I 115.8% 112.4% I 118.3% 109.7% ( 108.5% 101.7% [ 84.7% 105.1% I 98 4% 66.1% [ 108.6% 109.4% I 99.9% 92.2% 85.7% 92.5% 71.4% 90.2% 91.2% 85.2% 80.1% 99.8% 84.1% 85.0% 83.0% 85.9% 82.2% 76.2% 76.2% 91.6% 76.5% I 3rd Qlr Enrollm't i 433 513 630 506 310 434 534 520 484 454 273 318 656 455 557 333 605 389 343 241 258 384 402 448 454 312 428 281 405 453 320 220 323 223 257 I Report Dale May 23,1996 % Black 47.0% 52.0% 52.0% 42.0% 54.0% 47.0% 45.0% 49.0% 53.0% 85.0% 78.0% 66.0% 64.0% 93.0% 54.0% 41.0% 52.0% 63.0% 70.0% 67.0% 97.0% 79.0% 64.0% 69.0% 76.0% 71.0% 86.0% 65.0% 76.0% 80.0% 75.0% 79.0% 76.0% 96.0% 92.0% I I I I 1 | I I % eligible lor free or reduced Lunch I I I I I I I LZ 37.0% 22.4% 33.0% 38.3% 39.4% 43.6% 28.7% 36.2% 41.3% 78.0% 75.5% 61.3% 63.0% 86.5% 51.7% 34.8% 46.9% 49.6% 74.9% 68.5% 98.5% 73.7% 65.9% 73.9% 77.3% 54.5% 81.1% 66.9% 73.3% 74.8% 76.6% 77,3% 81.7% 83.0% 94.6% I % eligible for free lunch 32.3% 17.9% 27.0% 36.0% . 33.5% ' -  39.2% 31.7% 37.6% 69.8% 69.6% 54.4% 56.7% . , 79,8% 43.8% 30.9%  36.7% . 43.4% ,\n66 4%  61.8%  95.0% 68.0% 59.2% 64.1% 68.1% 46.5% 72.2% 61.9% - 68.9% 67,3% 65.9% 74.1% 74.3% 76.2% 89.9%Shee11 Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) Scores Elemenlary Schools compared Io To1al Dislrid Scores Complele Ballery f aii School Name Williams (magnef) Carver (magnet) I Terry Forest Park I Jefferson Gibbs (magnet) I Pulaski Heights Fulbright I Oller Creek King (inlerdislricl) I McDermott Western Hills Icioverdale Booker (magnet) I Romine (interdist) Washington (inter) I Woodruff Brady I Rightsell (incent) Rockefeller (incent) I Wilson Watson I Bale Mabelvale I Dodd Fair Park I Wakefield Meadowcliff |Geyer Springs Chicot iGartand (incent) Badgett I Baseline Mitchell (incent) iFrankin (incent) School Black 61.5 50 I 45 39.4 I 37.7 47.44 I 40.9 41.54 I 43.92 44.92 I 42.58 45.28 I 48.48 41.86 I 48.2 39.88 I 39.64 40.88 I 45.26 42 I 41.84 41.16 I 39.06 37.48 I 38.16 37.64 I 40.34 38.4 I 39 37.34 I 37.58 34.96 I 37.22 34.94 I 31.8 1 I District Black 41.7 41,7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41 7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41 7 41 7 % diff 147.5% 119.9% 107.9% 94.5% 90.4% 113.8% 98.1% 99.6% 105.3% 107.7% 102.1% 108.6% 116.3% 100.4% 115 6% 95.6% 95.1% 98.0% 108.5% 100.7% 100.3% 98.7% 93.7% 89.9% 91.5% 90.3% 96.7% 92.1% 93.5% 89.5% 90.1% 83.8% 89.3% 83.8% 76.3% I Sorted by the % difference of Schooi Tofal Scores fo Disfricf Total Scores School White 75.58 71.36 68.56 75.66 70.66 69.24 68.62 66.82 61.54 62.3 66.12 63.96 65.9 57.98 49.3 63.28 53.9 56.68 17.3 51.38 52.06 48.32 53.96 50.94 48.76 64.06 48.78 48.76 46.2 49.34 0 45.86 38.64 52.8 62.4 D^trict White 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 . 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 % diff 119.4% 112.7% 108.3% 119.5% 111.6% 109.3% 108.4% 105.5% 97.2% 98.4% 104.4% 101.0% 104.1% 91.6% 77.9% 99.9% 85.1% 89.5% 27.3% 81.1% , 82.2% 76.3% 85.2% 80.4% 77.0% . 101.2% 77.0% 77.0% 73.0% 77.9% 0.0% 72.4% 61.0% 83.4% 98.5% School Total 68.46 60.86 58.4 58.08 57.52 57.16 55.52 54.18 54 53.64 53.58 51.92 50.2 49.34 49.28 48.58 45.68 45.52 45.24 45.02 44.54 42.44 : 42.32 42.08 41.96 41.84 41.52 40.98 40.58 39.56 37.76 37.64 37.64 35.24 32.64 Page 1 District Total 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 , I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 , 49.38 I 49.38 Z 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 I diff 138.6% 123.2% 118.3% 117.6% 116.5% 115.8% 112.4% 109.7% 109.4% 108.6% 108.5% 105.1% 101.7% 99.9% 99.8% 98.4% 92.5% 92.2% 91.6% 91.2% 90.2% 85.9% 85.7% 85.2% 85.0% 84.7% 84.1% 83.0% 82.2% 80.1% 76.5% 76.2% 76.2% 71.4% 66.1% 3rd Qfr Enrollm'f 513 630 534 433 506 310 434 520 333 557 484 318 454 605 312 656 241 389 223 402 384 453 343 448 281 273 428 405 320 454 257 220 323 258 455 r Report Date May 23, f996 % Black _%^ligible tor free or reduced Lunch 52.0% ... 52.0% I 45.0% 47.0% I 42.0% ,, 54.0% j 47.0% ~ 49.0% I 41.0% 54.0% I 53.0% 66.0% I 85.0% 52.0% I 71.0% 64.0% I 67.0% 63.0% . I 96.0% 64.0% I 79.0% 80.0% I 70.0% 69.0% I 65.0% 78.0% I 86.0% 76.0% I 75.0% 76.0% I 92.0% 79.0% I 76.0% 97.0% I 93.0% 22.4% 33.0% 28.7% 37.0% 38.3% 39.4% 43.6% 36.2% 34.8% 51.7% 41.3% 61.3% 78.0% 46.9% 54.5% 63.0% 68.5% 49.6% 83.0% 65.9% 73.7% 74.3% 74.9% 73.3% 66.9% 75.3% 81.1% 73.3% 73.3% 77.3% 94.6% 77.3% 811% 98.5% 86.5% % eligible for free iunch 17.9% 27.0% 27.2% 32.3% 36.0% 33.5% 39.2% 31.7% 30.9% 43.8% 37.6% 54.4% 69.8% 36.7% 46.5% 56.7% 61.8% 43.4% 76.2% 59.2% 68.0% 67.3% 66.4% 64.1% 61.9%  69.6% . 72.2% 68.9% 65.9% 1-68.1% 89.9% 74.1% 74.3% . 95.0% 79.8%e' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation 810 West Markham Street Little Rock. AR 72201 r* ve\u0026lt;' J MEMORANDUM ' D Date: May 29, 1996 To: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Superintendents Cabinet Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Magnet Review Committee CTA From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Subject: 1995-96 Fall Stanford Achievement Test - Eighth Edition Annual Report Analyses '' /t 7) Please find enclosed the 1995-96 Stanford Achievement Test - Eighth Edition Annual Report Analyses. This report represents a summary of the Stanford Eight Achievement Tests that were administered to students in grades 2 through 11 in the fall of 1995. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Enclosure cc: LRSD Board MembersJohn w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OCT 1 b 1996 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Office of Desegregation Monitoring via Facsimile 324-2308 October 15, 1996 Mr. Rudolph Howard, Principal Central High School 1400 Park Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Howard: I am writing to request information regarding the PSAT testing that was done at Central today. This office has received several calls from parents of class members alleging disparate treatment regarding the testing. For example, in one of Ms. Becker's 10th grade English classes, none of the black students were allowed to take the test nor did they receive information regarding the same. With information that I have provided thus far, would you please provide the following to this office: 1) gender and grade level\nthe number of students who took the PSAT by race. 2) the name of the teachers by core subject whose students were given the PSAT\n3) state the date(s) of the next PSAT testing\nprovide all documentation that was published by the administration and/or staff to advise students of the PSAT 4) testing\nprovide all documentation (item #4 above) including criteria used to be considered for testing that was provided to the students and the date(s) this information was provided either through written notice or announcement\n5) 6) provide all correspondence, brochures, literature that the administration, teachers, counselors and other staff members have regarding PSAT testing\nand 7) state the name of the person(s) responsible for the PSAT testing besides yourself.I would like to have this information by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday afternoon, October 17, 1996. immediate attention to this request. Thank you for your incerel I /^oy C. Springer Kloshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Dr. Victor Anderson Dr. Don Roberts Ms. Ann Brown Joshua class membersLU Q UJ LU m LU Visit our home page on the World Wide Web: hup: 11 WWW. collegeboard. org  iap z cc o U5J z o i 5 S I -J 55 LU oz cci (fi DC UJ Q. V) Vi 0)3 QQ^ LU LU (/) Vi LU CC O Q co Q LU m UJ O H t/i O 0. _ i/\u0026gt; OJ LJ .y X- \u0026gt; (U Ln m G o m m 9^ o O O \u0026lt; O QQ \u0026gt; -5 QJ  2 I'C-Se^' /SI I 5o h\ntj U O 7 m 'I 2  - x: in Q H H Wwe^a n,t .hear from , you: to The College Board Educational Excellence for All Students Tell us whot you think of the PSAT/NMSQT Student Bulletin Tell us about yourself So,, 1. How much do you actually read? _____ all of it _____ most of it _____ some of it _____ none of it 5. 6. 2. Which pages do you read? [Check all that apply.] _____ None _____ Front page _____ Tips and hints about verbal questions _____ Tips and hints about math questions _____ Tips about bubbles for address, scholarships, (2-5) (6-9) 3. 4. majors, etc. _____ Full-length test ____ Scholarship information (11-12) 7. How do you rate the Student Bulletin? [For each characteristic, circle the appropriate number on the scale.] 1____ boring 2 3 4 5 6 interesting 8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 hard to read easy to read 1 2 3 4 unattractive 5 6 attractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 uninteresting lots of helpful info 9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 information hard to find information easy to find 1______ too long 2 3 4 5 6 too brief 10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 disorganized well-organized What is your overall impression of the Student Bulletin? Sex _____Female _____Male Grade Level _____12th grade _____11 th grade _____10th grade _____ 9th grade _____ Sth grade _____Not yet in Sth grade you re thinking about college Grade Average _____A+ or A _____A- or B+ _____ B or B- _____C+ or C _____C- or D+ _____D or below Educational Plans _____specialized training or certificate program _____two-year college degree _____four-year college degree _____master's degree _____doctoral or related degree _____I don't know How did you get your copy of the Student Bulletin? from a counselor from a teacher from a volunteer or secretary Other (Please specify) Did you take the PSAT/NMSQT last year? ______yes ______no Optional Name (please print) School Code Phone ( ) thank you The College Board wants to help you get ready for college. Taking the PSAT/ NMSQT lets you get feedback about academic preparation, get mail from colleges, and get scholarships. The PSAT/NMSQT Student Bulletin has a lot of helpful information about doing well on the test. But it won't help, unless you read it. We want to know what you read (or don't read), and why. Your answers will influence future editions. Thank you. Sincerely, Maureen Welsh Director of School Services P.S. If you tell us who you are, we may contact you.I CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 1500 SOUTH PARK STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 2 / /995 October 17, 1996 Office of ^^^^gregation Moniionna Joy Springer Joshua Intervenors 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Ms. Springer: In response to your request for information regarding PSAT testing practices and procedures at Central High School, the following insights are herein provided according to your fax dated 10/15/96. 1. The number of students according to race, level. gender and grade A. Race White 230 Black 94 Other 22 Total 346 B. Gender WM 78 WF 152 BM 35 BF 59 OM 11 OF 11 Total 346 C. Grade Level Grade 10 Grade 11 WM WF Sub Totals 27 68 95 BM BF 2 OM 13 OF 15 4 6 10 WM WF 51 84 135 BM BF 2. Total Grade 10 - 120 Total Tested 33 46 79 OM OF 7 5 12 Total Grade 11 - 346 226 The name of the teachers by core subject whose students were given the PSAT. As I indicated in our phone conversation on 10/16/96, I do not fully understand what you are needing here, however, I hope that the following explanation suffices. A. The PSAT is a test which is strongly recommended to be given to 11th grade students, however, we do encourage 10th grade students to take it. that we promote for 10th graders to take. The PLAN Test is a test I make this point because a greater effort of solicitation is made to 11th graders versus 10th graders. Observe, however. that many 10th graders (120) as well as 11th graders (226) took the test. Page 2 B. C. Since any and all students who take the PSAT are enrolled in core subjects, any and all teachers that teach the core areas will have students represented. Is a roster of all my English, math, science and/or social studies teachers being requested here? The PSAT is not administered via classes, e.g., English, math, etc. Testing sites are set up according to our scheme and students from all classes, English, math. etc., are assigned to the sites. Please see the five page special bulletin attachment for the testing sites and the students assigned there. 3. The next PSAT testing will be in October of 1997. Again, it will be recommended for 11th graders, but 10th graders will be encouraged to take it. 4. Provide all documentation that was published by the administration and/or staff to advise students of the PSAT. A. Announcement of PSAT testing is provided in the LRSD's 1996-97 calendar. The District's calendar is presented by the Superintendent to the Board for approval in the Spring each year. All patrons and schools have access to the calendar prior to the beginning of school each year. See attachment. B. Central High School publishes a monthly calendar. It is distributed to all staff the week prior to the beginning of each month. calendar in their classrooms. Teachers are encouraged to post the C. See attachment. Central High communicates all major and/or important events through its newspaper. The- Tiger. The paper is delivered to our students by the journalism department D. twice to three times per month. See attachment. Central attempts to keep its students informed via a Daily Bulletin. The announcements concerning the PSAT were contained in the bulletins on the following dates: 9/20/96 10/09/96 10/01/96 10/10/96 10/04/96 10/11/96 Teachers read the daily bulletin to students during 1st period. See attachment. E. In addition, announcements regarding the PSAT were made via intercom both mornings and afternoons, October 1-4, 1996. Special bulletins were published and distributed 10/7, F. 10/11 and 10/14, 1996. See attached. Counselors personally visited every 11th grade English class during the period 10/1 - 10/11, 1996, in an effort to discuss the importance of the test and to encourage registration.Page 3 G. All teachers, irrespective of subject area and/or grade level, received two (2) special bulletins regarding the PSAT on the following dates: 1996 . See attachment. October 7, 11, and 14, 5. Provide all documentation (Item #4 above) including criteria used to be considered for testing . . . Item #4 contains all documentation asited for in Item #5. There was no additional criteria provided to students except that they pay for the cost of the test, $9.00, at which time the PSAT Student Bulletin was given to every 10th grade student who signed the stand-by list and to all 11th grade students who paid the $9.00. 6. Provide all correspondence, brochures . . . See Item #6 and PSAT Student Bulletin (attached). 7. State the person(s) responsible for the PSAT testing besides yourself: Sam Blair, Test Coordinator and Head Counselor Ann Graves, Counselor Peggy Hawthorne, Counselor Lynda Johnson, Counselor Linda Porter, Counselor SincefrefLy, Rudodph Howard Principal RH/mj s cc: Dr. Dr. Ms . Victor Anderson Don Roberts Ann Brown Joshua class membersLittle Rock School District First Class Schools For World Class Kids dis n/ Vil'. ^'l jl h  t-' ^f-y.-. ... ^' / \"V . 1\ni- ^'1/ '\u0026gt;J SB V /'r i!' ^2 ii ig\n! w  * * iS\nw A y t ik..^ y\" 1996-97 CALENDAR0^ S M T W T F s 1 School Day Photos 10th. 11th. Kinoer-garten \u0026amp; Faculty PTSA Mtg Library 5:30 p.m. 2 FBLA Meeting 125B 3 Senior Make-up Picture Day (Rm 103) 4 Home-coming Court Nominees Pep Rally(NLR} Order Senior Ring Lunch Times only 5 6 20 ! r. 13 College Admissions Program 2:00 Auditorium I 27 'Daylight Savings Time Ends I'\"'\" 7 Faculty Meeting 14 21 Home-coming Carnations Sale Mu Alpha Theta 28 8 15 PSAT (Periods 10th \u0026amp; 11th Graders End of 9 weeks 22 Early Dismissal 29 Order Senior Announcements Invitations/ Caps Gowns Report Cards Go Home 9 Teachers meeting with Dr. Roberts 4:30 p.m. 16 Students Out Teacher Workday 23 30 Order Sr. Announcements Invitations/ Cap \u0026amp; Gown Plan Test 10 FBLA Mtg 125B 17 24 1st Equity Monitoring 31 11 Pep Rally (Conway) I 12 I I 18 Scoliosis Screening 25 Pep Rally (Home-coming) Park view 1 I 1 I 19 26 i I I ! I i t I II IV [ n II I L-......  w .. CenfRolHighTigeRsJ Enrollment totals 1785 students Sophomores - 760 Juniors - 529 Seniors 464 Kindergartners  32 Tonight's football game is here at Quigley. Kickoff is 7:30 p.m. LITTLE ROCK CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Volume 102 Little Rock, Arkansas, October 4,1996 Number 5 THE BELL IS BACK!  i * Winning BELL very special to Class of 97 Ringing the belt Pictured at left are three Central High Tigers who want nothing better than to re-paint the bell from orange and white to black and gold. At left are Ralph Jack-son. Joseph McCraney and Errick Berry. Students had an opportunity to see and hear the Central bell ring Tuesday niorning while It sat in Student Council Sponsor Mr. Mark Mead ows truck on the school's front law. It was a truly glori OUS sight. By Ryan Davis It's back!! And it'saboui linx. After four years al Hall Ihe coveted Bell is honw. all thanks lo the spanking given lo ihe Warriors by Ihe TiguT bxnhalt leani. Rushing for 267 yards, die Tigers delivered a smashing 20-0 defcal to iIk Wjuriors of Hall High. \"It's bevn four years (since we last had Ihe Hell] iuid we didn't gel any respcx'i.\" senior light end Jixscph McCr.iixV staled. \"We got our rcs|X'Ci back. Anyixxly who thinks b.id alxml the leaiii. ...we an- going to prove them wrong.\" The Warriors, whoenlereil the \"Hallie for llie Hell on a ihrcv-gaiiK winning sire.ik, were only able lo allain 7.S yards rushing due lo the lix\u0026gt;l-pn.Hf Tigei defense. \"We tried lo prose sonwlliing lo our fans aixJ coaches. ' senior defensive eixl Fmck Herry s.n,l. Berry liiilliei si.iu-d lli.tl ilu \"defense' kind \u0026lt;f lei dow n dm iiig the ganx.' :il West Memphis,\" which allowed the Blue I X s il- h \u0026gt; rush oser 7\u0026lt;X\u0026gt; yards. Il Was an alt (lefeiise first h.ilf with die Tigers leading 7 0 .i-. h.ilflinx buzzer s^uixled. Tlii' was due lo senior l.iilb.n k Virgil Jones' selling up the louelxlowt. followiijg.i 47 y.trd p.isscmpk lii'n from qii.irlerb.iek Rt'bbie Stilleiiger .iiid dien niiming foiii y.irds for the hHiehdwn. Thl^ iixrcdible pl.iv c.iiiie willi I I' Continued on page 4 Ntws BRiefs\n4 of states 10 scholars are Central High students Krill .lohnsnn, a Cenii'al High innior. will lx* leaiured .is fli.innel Il's \"SliMlenl of Hie Week\" ironi (X t. 1-11. Johnson i\\ .1 .Student Council junior ap. president of Little Rixks chapter ofTop Teens, vice pa*sident of Centr.il's SBCMIi. .ind was nominated for the 1997 N.i-tion. il Youth Le.idership l-orum on Medicine. He w.is the winner 01 the I99.S-9f) Mr. LRCH Photogenic Contest. S* By Christine Whitson Four seniors .ire semilln.il-ists in the National Achievement Scholarship Program (NASP). Tliey are Salonica Gray. Larissa Jennings. T. Michelle Payne, and Ngozi i Scott. This awjird honors - ouisiJinding African-Americiin students. World Test, a celebration of uorld coinmuniiies. people, pl.inis and animals, will lx* held lomorrow Ironi 10-7 ill M.icAnhiir P.irk. Aeimission is free. Semifinalists. These three seniors were among 10 students from around Arkansas who were recently announced as National Achievement Scholar semifinalists. Pictured are Ngozi Scott, Salonica Gray and Larissa Jennings. The fourth semifinalist, not pictured, is T. Michelle Payne. About 1,200 finalists and 750 scholarships will be awarded next spring. To Ik considered, sludeiils iixik the Preliminitry Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) in their junior year. The NASP is conducted by the National Merit Scholarship Coqxxa-tion. An estimated I(X).(XK) Africiin-Aniericiui students entered the competition by taking the PSAT iind 1.5(X) semilinal-ists were chosen natiiutwide. The semifinidisis will com-peic by Inking ihc Scholnsiic Aphiiidc Test (SAIIi .Uhl cdinplcimg .1 SIX) word esvix. Tlie essay is lo lx* .ilxui then ac.idcnuc |Xrloriii.incc. exir.i curricular acliviiics they participate in. iheir contribiiitons lo Ihe community and scIuk)I. iuid their educational plans lor the filllire. There will lx* 1.2\u0026lt;MHinalisis and 750 scholarship.s awarded totalling S.^ million. They will be given next spring. Juniors inieresicil in com|Xiing for next years scholarships shotikl coniact their counselor. Other semifinalisis in Arkansas are fmm Blytheville. Jacksonville. Mount St. Mary's. Pine Bluff. Russellville, and Helena. Ocfolivr will be a busy monih al Central and throughout the LRSD. College night is Thursday. (X t. 10. A pep rally IS planned for next Friday, (kt. 11 for the hxuball gameagainsi Conw.iy. The S Yl' Tesi is (Xt. 12. The ISAI will fx given to HUh and llih graders during period.s l-.l on Tuesday. (Xt. 1.^. Thal IS Ihe final day of ihe firsi 9-weeks. Siudeiiis are out of school on Wevlnesil.iy, (X'l. 16 for a teacher workday. Mu Alpha Theta will hold a carnation sale for lloinccom-ing Week.l XI. 21 -2.\u0026gt;. Tuesday. I \u0026gt;ci. 22 IS .in early dismissal ^Liy. The homecoming game is I'rid.n. Oci. againsi Parkview. Seniors will or^ler oul guuHs tX't. 2v-.P\u0026lt; ni Homecoming nominees told A total of 22 young ladies have been nominuied Homecoming nominees. Pictured above are Kumari Hardy. Jenny Wiedower. Misiv Price. Tiffany Mays, NiLki MclilHMg, Suzanna Monk, Evita Washington. Mary Fleming. Jill Irv.'in. Eiuubuili Faulkner. Moyao Kearney. AlonUra Givons, Molly Darragh, Tiffany Cravens, Tanya Corbin, Monica Simpbuii, thmugh first periixJ ciasse.s to contend for posiiioiw on the 1996 Central High Fixxlxill Homecoming Court. These students met with Mr. Mark Meadows. Siiident Council .sponsor, last Thursday lo Iciini about practice and appropriate attire. They will be* presented before the student btxly at an assembly nxlay. Students will have m opportunity to vote for the court, lloniecoining is Oitober 26 against Ihe Parkview High Schi**\ni i I 1 CENTRAL ilIGM SCHOOL DAILY BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 20, 1996 FRIDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter 1/f Richard Boyd I/f Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson l/f Patrick I Tilery Expul Jonathan Van Buren I/T Vincent Williams lixpul luirl Westbrook lixpul I b iea Singleton-I I lenry James -xpi /r James llubbiud lixpul Rec. Nicole Breedlove l/f Eabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Harold Smith 9/19-9/25 Kissy Russell I/f Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Sem Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Courtney Smith 9/12-9/25 , Edmar Higgins Expul. Courtney Blackwell 9/13-9/26 Maria Slubbcrfield 1/f Quentin Davis 1/f Danny Brown LT Antimoore Jackson Expul Phillip Hatton L/T John Roberts LT Rec. Wyncse Gantt 9/18-9/25 Korey Williams Rashee Barnett 9/19-9/26 Shawnrita Sain 9/19-9/25 Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1 st Sem Ryan Bell 9/19-9/26 David Hall 9/19-9/25 Elijah Johnson Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris I/f Adrias Moore 9/12-9/26 Archie Howard 9/11-9/24 Melvin Shepard 9/16-9/27 HI-STEPPERS: Teachers please dismiss all Hi-Steppers at 3:00 pm to leave for the bailgame in West Memphis. TEACHERS: Thank you for your splendid help in administering the Stanford 9. We had almost 100% perfect teacher attendance for the three days. Please add these future test dates to your calendar\nwe know that nobody likes to be surprised. As you can tell, the standardized test mania continues unabated: * October 15 - PSAT (about 400 juniors and sophomores) October 30 - PLAN test for sophomores (pre-ACT\nLRSD mandates it for all sophomores now) November 11 - 14 - State-mandated Exit exam for juniors (4 days) November 15 - Exit exam makeups STAFF MEMBERS: If you are cunenlly certified in First Aid, please notify Mrs. Stone immediately. ALL STAFF: Anyone interested in coaching swimming? Please contact Mr. Howard. WELLNESS CIJNIC: Friday Sept. 20th is the last day to sign up for a group in the Wellness .Clinic. All students who are interested in a group and all teachers or administrators who want to refer a student to a group should do so by that dale. STUDENTS: YOUNG DEMOCRATS: There will be a meeting on Tuesday the 24th during both lunches in Mrs. Cobbs room 337. SOPHOMORES \u0026amp; JUNIORS: The Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange Program scholarship is now being olTered to students with a 3.0 GPA or higher. The student winners will spend a full year in Germany immersed in the lan| studeiit.s I,PA language and '199^'^' guidance office for an application. Applications must e postmarked by November 12, GERMAN CLUB: Sign up for German Club in room 312. Dues are $3.00. Our first meeting is Friday September 20. GUIDANCE: Any 10th, 11th and 12th graders interested in applying for the Prudential Spirit of community award, see Mrs. Porter. Central Highs top volunteer will be chosen to compete at the state level. Requirements include writing. Two essays about your volunteer work. Deadline for submitting your application. Deadline is Oct. 18,1996. GUIDANCE: Any 10th, 11th and 12th graders interested in applying for The voice of Democracy scholarship, see Mr s Graves. Requirements include a 3-5 minute recording and an essay on the students personal responsibility and understanding of the rights and responsibilities of being an American. Deadline: Nov. 2, 1996. INTERACT CLUB: Do you ever feel the urge to Mamba? Does the sight of Leder-hosen give you goose-bumps' Do siicred pigeons erk your curiosity'. If you answered yes to any of these questions then youd best get on the train and sign up for Interact, a service oriented club with an internal flare. Register today at lunch! JOURNALISM: Attention all seniors - those seniors who need a senior photograph made for the yearbook or to purchase must come by room 103 between Sept 13 and Sept 20 to receive an appomtment. See Mrs. Cherry to make your appointment ASAP. Thursday, Oct 3 is the last day our school photographers will be here taking senior pictures. SPANISH CLUB: Anyone currently enrolled in a Spanish Class that is interested in joining Spanish Club Please sign up in Rm. 335 or pay your Spanish Teacher. Dues are $3. Deadline to sign up is September 20. interested in joining Mu Alpha Theta should obtain and return a form in room 145 by F:3O pm^^ P a:ements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30th 8:30 am -DAILY B U L L E TIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1996 TUESDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Danieks Adrin Shorter L/T Richard Boyd L/T Jabari Cummins lixpul Demingo Johnson L/T Patrick Tillery lixpul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams lixpul liarl Westbrook lixpul lirica Singleton-I/f lidmar Higgins Expul. Maria  Iliagins Stubherlielu L/T Quentin Davi.s I./'f Danny Brown LT Chris Beasley 9/23-10/7 Mark Thompson 9/24-9/30 l ory Irby 9/25-10/2 Natasha Samuel 9/25-10/9 Justin Thabit 9/26-10/3 James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/T Fabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Jeffrey Moss 9/26-10/3 Kissy Russell L/T Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1 st Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris L/T Antimoore Jackson Expul Phillip Hatton I/f Archie Howard ITT Rashaad Profit I/f Felyxia Williams 9/25-10/2 De Wayne Veasley 9/25-10/2 Lakilia Turner 9/26-10/3 Sem John Roberts LT Rec. Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Korey Williams Kinte Perry 9/30-10/4 Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1st Sem Elijah Johnson Expul Gerron Garrett 9/24-10/9 Marina McElrath 9/25-10/2 Teri Walker 9/25-10/2 Billy Robinson 9/26-10/3 WELLNESS: Wellness Clinic groups will start meeting Monday, 9-30-96. liach member will sign a group contract and we have placed a copy of it in your mailboxes. As soon as group membership has stabilized (1-2 weeks) wc^will give vou a calendar and roster. If you have any questions please contact the Wellness clinic. ' .hoMahis Rouse Scholarship for Outstanding Teachers are available in O  t f Stone if you wish to apply . Each school may nominate two teachers. Ilie award consists varies  lSKr?p?ytoffK M  educational activity. The cash award ATTENTION TEACHERS: The following students are helping with school pictures. Please allow them to make-un anv k\"Sept. 30} 9-12 noon: Matt Milhollen, Meghan OMalley, and Tara Hall From 12-3 1 eah lleloUi \u0026lt;? *^7  Wick^d. (Tuesday, Oct. 1 )9-12 noon: Paula Moore, Lucie WetzeL Molly fhmsd J Oct 31 9 ?2 noon-Idlahunty and Kristen Wanek. Matt^lb^R-n indV.m d^n^fer Wagner. 12-3 pm.: Anthony Jacuzzi, Jill Irwin. Matt Milfiolen, and Tara Hail. STUDENTS\nJUN IORS \u0026amp; SENIORS\nIf you would like to be nominated for the National Youth'i.eadership Forum on Defense Intelligence and Diplomacy to be held in Washington D.C. in February, please see Mr.s Graves You must have a B average. I he cost to you is $890 plus transportation to Washington. -a cs. i ou iiiusi nave a i j Troubadour Members there will be a meeting in room 134 on Thursday October 3 1996 We w ill meet in room 134 dunng each lunch penod. Please attend we will nominate officers at this meeting! Th.\\h^th^'^ldmf Giris Basketball Team will be Thursday Oct. 3 at 6:00 in the Gvm. 1 nis IS inc XiriiH irvout. It vou nave anv cpc* f ia*) * Ihis is thcLjnal Tryout. If you have any questions see Coach Fitzpatrick in room 102. K Attaition French Club Members there will be a French Club meeting this Thursdav October 3rd diirino SKnS:.,'\n\" -'I \u0026gt;5.  lunch seniors portraits on matted \"'de^ See M^^. CheiT7befom SMOKING CLASS: Smoking class will be held October 2nd \u0026amp; 3rd at 8:00 in the Library Conference room. -d-?pd lunch in room 325. Elections will be held  t , r Al --------luuivii Hl luviu ixj aiiu secont and plans for the year will be discussed. Drawing for grand prize will be Oct. 2. W^d 2 Teenage Republicans will be having their membership drive from Wed., Sept 25 to cd. Oct. 2. Ihcrc will be a tabic in front of the library during first and second lunch for anyone interested in signing up. f ^der your caps \u0026amp; gowns \u0026amp; 1:30 pm. announcements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30th 8 30 am - tllN JOKS : Unlike the SAT or ACT, which are the PSAT is not a required test. used for college adnii ss ion , SOPIIOMOKI- UTrniiKS JENIOKS JDNIGRS: used to determine However, it is the tesl , next year's National Merit and National Achievement Semifinalists. This year's test is October The cost This year's _____ is $9.00 (correct change) payable in advance You may bring your payment to Mrs. Graves in the Guidance 01 fice B1^ORE_ school or DURING LUNCH by Thursday. October You will be given test 1 \u0026gt;. Graves Thursday, a receipt, whicE~will be your ticket. well as your pass to class. Please come to register early. of admission as Please 111. : The PSAT is a test for juniors, tests than we expect to need. but we have ordered iiioi e Sophomores wishing to trike the PSAT \"for practice\" may sign a stand-by list Gii i dance bn t office beginning today. The test costs in the sophomores will pay on the day of the test since we don't know how many tests will be\"available. stand-by list does be taking the test. Signing the not assure a sophomore that ho/she will Kepreseiitatives from the following colleges will be In the Guidance Conference Room next week applicants. to talk to prospective If you are interested-and meet the college's admission requirements, you may sign the list on the back bulletin board in the Guidance Office before the d.iy of the visit. - ---- Mon., Oct. 7: Wed., Oct. 9\nThur!!. Oct. 10: Erl., Oct. 11: 10:00 a.m. Hendrix College, Conway, AK. 9:55 a.m. Park College, St. Louis, MO 1.45 p.m. Drury College, Springfield, HO. 8:55 a.m. University of Chicago, Chicag.o, 8:55 a.m. Kenyon College, Gambler, Oil. III.. 10:00 a.m. Centenary College,Shreveport, LA. 11:00 a.m. University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 1:45 p.m. Columbia U. , New York, New York 2:45 p.m. Davidson College, Davidson, N.C. The applications for the Discover Card_ Youth Program Tribute Award Scholarships are here in Ihe Guidance Of fice. These scholarships can be used for any post high school training you are planning to enter. mus_t have a GPA of 2.75 or higher to compete. You You must demonstrate accomplishments in four out of these five a teas: Special Talents, Leadership, Obstacles Overcome, Community Service, Unique Endeavors. due to be received The application i: See Mrs. Graves for an application. by the committee by January 10, 199/.DAILY B U L L E TIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 4,1996 FRIDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter L/T Richard Boyd ITT Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson L/T Patrick I illery lixpul Jonathan Van Buren ITT Vincent Williams Expul liarl Westbrook Expul Erica Singlcton-I/T lidmar\"' Higgins Expul. )ore Jackson Ex Antimoore Expul Quentin Davis IZf James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/T Fabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Jeffrey Moss 9/26-10/3 Kissy Russell ITT Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Sem Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Hams ITT John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard L/T Korey Williams Kinte Perry 9/30-10/4 Deshun Williams 10/2-10/8 Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1st Sem Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul IJanny Brown LT Chris Beasley 9/23-10/7 Natasha Samuel 9/25-10/9 Phillip Hatton L/T Sherita Smith 10/2-10/8 Rashaad Profit L/T Gerron Garrett 9/24-10/9 Drh?m ' teachers: Please send your Individual Improvement Plan (IIP) to ^^^^'^^FRS. 1 lease excuse the following students on Tuesday Oct 7 nt in-tsnm trv *1 \u0026lt; wc have placed a copy of it calender and roster, l VJ\" meeting Monday, 9-30-96. liach member will sign a ei 11 you have any questions please contact the Wellness clmic. ' ' I^ch member will sign a groifp contract and we will give you a are available in ATTENTION TEACHERS: The following student.s missed work. . (MoX Sept W 9 12 n^-lJfaSMiZnxf ^hool pictures. Please allow them to make-up any Vi.,:.:.. cV 1 P Matt Milhollen, Meghan O Malley, and Tara Hall From 12-3 1 pah ftplmti .ef.? Wickard. (Tuesday, Oct. 1)9-12 noom Paula Moore Luefe We^el Mollv Santini, and Lydia Mcew. 12-3 p.m : Meghan Rose, Katie Dowell, Ashley Dillahunty and Kri^cm ^anck Tiffany Wyatt. Ellen leay, and Jennifer Wagner. 12-3 pm,: Anthony/aXuill S Kelly Morion, uiumvj, onu v-tum\nWlCKa Darragh. James Mccoy (Ihursdav, Oct. 3) 9-12 noon: Malt Milholen. and Tara Hall. STUDENTS: yu ni^ mo^to a\"sS Ar?\"= stop by the bookstore this Friday if Ibk\\n n 7\" Calendar of activities and Fall Conference Room 325A or from yur business teacher. The next meeting will be Wednesday, October 10. information may get Md? L8?(13^163^* Multi-CuItural Day for Seniors on Monday, October CONGRATULATIONS TO 96-97 LATIN CLUB OFFICERS: Whitney Bailey, I reas. Kara Lipsmeycr, Rep. Brooke Ishmael Pres. Patrick Hicks, V-Pres. Chastity Hicks, Scc.-SPANISH CLUB\nI or anyone who signed up for Spanish Club, ihere will be e meetina Tuesday October 8 Tbi,  very iinportunt. Wc w.lf be elceling officer,. Fir,l IrrrK* will meet to R. 314 and Snd 13'vSl nSl to S 3 ------------------------s meeting will meet in nn. 335. GO'*'  \"k'' 'taulalion. See Mm. AH ENTION SENIOR REPRESENTATIVES: Then! will be a meeltog of the Senior Council on Frid.v  P'* K-ic will be finalized.^' in Ms. Cobbs* I. Ifaltcnduncu is SENIORS: Applications for the National Beta Club chgihic tor mcmbcrsliip, ----- '  - good cilizen.ship grades.' ,, --------''4are available in the Library and Rcxim 219 Tube ' 1-hi^ g.'^e pom! average (including 9th grade) of at least 3 0 and have Jhe application deadline is Fnday, October 11,4:00p.m. El^^iu. joiu. E' SCHOLAR.SHIP INFORMATION HAS ARRIVED IN THE GUIDANCE OmCF Cheek ihe srtholarship box. Your l-.nghsh teacher also has a copy on her bulletin board, rfltl.. Check the YOUNG DEMOCRATSTEENACE HEPUBUCANS\nIf you are 18 before Nov S ckclIOtl Yon \u0026lt;-nn rPDKtnrbv thaa likvoww Uei. 1 u-? vviviv iiv. j, s .SEC'ME\nStudents who are creative and motivated iipplication. are encouraged lo join SECME. Sec Mrs Blcvtoa (room 122) fur an VC a I) LW pm^' *'8' * nnouKanoiU from Josinu to the bookstore On 291h \u0026amp; 30lh 8:30 am - ll KI It (ttt.\nHl. like the SAT or ACT. which . - ---------- are used for college ndmi Ih.\nl.SAl IS not a required test. ii.Hd lo duterrnj! However, It in i|i(\u0026gt; tfst , . , years National Merit ami N.iiion.il Aclilovpment Semi f inali sts . \"*  III.' cost This year's tost is Octnhci V.niA/eAl W..aa*evU1* a*' ' ~  ' iH 59.00 (correct change) payable in aJv,ii\u0026gt;cc* i.Mi may hi mg your payment to Mrs. Craves in the Guulaiic- 'Ml mo BIJOHK SCIKXJL oc pllRING LUNCH by Thursday, Vou wilt ho given a receipt, whTcKwill bo  'I Hiiiiission as well as your pass to class. Ot'tOhlM 'iHirttiiKi:  \u0026gt;l your ticket li tcijister early. Ile.uto come The PSAT is n tost for juniors, but we have ordciwd tji than wc export to need. inoj  Sophomores wishing tf) t.ikt*   It. --.W|..ua WAOIIAIKI I tJ l.ll Hit' ISAf tor practice\" may sign a stand-by list iti ttn- Co idanco otEico beginning tflday. .---------------XAJSI\n*. The tost costs 59.0(1. sopiioinores will pay on the day of tlio test niiitro -I'oil know how mony test.s will be nvail.ible.  I.iiul-liy tint does not assure wo SigniiKj (h.\u0026gt; Ik- lakiiK] the tost. a sophomore that hn/siin wi I I Hi.-iinii\n: ' I n mu:\nUIIHOIh\n: Rcprcuentatlwes fro the following cnllegcn will bo in the Uuld.nicc Coiifereoce Rona oext week to talk to --- pronpertIve If you are Interested vaod acet the ro] irge'ii udaliialuii requlrvacnts, you asy alga the list on the h.irk nppllcantu. biillctla board In the Guidance Office before the day w I u \u0026lt; \u0026gt; ----------- TUES, Oct. 8: Wi-d., Oct. 9: Tlnirn.Oct. 10: Frl., Oct. 11: |\u0026gt;I \u0026lt;h\u0026gt;- 10:00 a.a. Hendrix College, Conway, AH. 9:55 a.a. Park College, St. Louis, MO \" Drury College, Springfield. MO. 1.45 p. 8:55 a. 6:55 a. 10:00 11:00 1:45 P Ualverslty of Chicago, Clilr.np.ti, III.. Kenyon College, Csabler, OH. Centeoary College,Shreveport. 1^. University of Tulaa, Tuhi.i. (JK Goluabla U. , New York, New Yik 2:45 p.a. Davldsoo College, Davldcon, N.C. Tin* applications for the Discover Card Youth Pro.jr.nn 11ibute Award Scholarships are here in the Guidance of H co. These scholarships can be used for any post higli school training you are planning to enter. have a GPA of 2.75 or higher to compete. Yon You must ilt.-inonstratc accomplishments in four out of these five \u0026lt;11 nns s Special Talents, Leadership, Obstacles Overconx!, ('(iimniinity Service, Unique Endeavors. The Application is linn to be received by the committee by January 10, 1'197. .Stjc Mrs. Graves for an application.DA I L Y B UL L E TIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 9, 1996 WEDNESDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adi in Shorter L/f Richard Boyd L/f Jabari Cummins F.xpul Deiningo Johnson L/T Iiilhck Tillery Expul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams Expul Earl Westbrook Expul Erica Singleton-1/f Edmar Higgins Expul. Anlimoore Jackson Expul Quentin Davis L/T Danny Brow n LT Rashaad Profit ITT Natasha Samuel 9/25-10/9 Jainc.s Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/f Fabrian Bridgewater F.xpul Deon Earnest Expul Deshun Williams 10/2-10/8 Kissy Russell I./!' Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Sem Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris ITT DeWayne Veasley 10/3-10/9 Phillip Hatton L/T Sherita Smith 10/2-10/8 Gerron Garrett 9/24-10/9 Shurrod Smith 10/8-10/15 John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard IVr Korey Williams Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1 st Sem Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul Timothy Turner 10/4-10/10 Fred Williams 10/3-10/17 TO ALL FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENTS: The Central High School library is now exhibiting the original art works ot many prominent African American artists including Romare Bearden and Jacob I.awrence. These works on paper arc from the Arkansas Arts Centers permanent collection and will be on display through October 30th Ihis show sponsored by the Central High School P.T.S.A. IS STUDENTS: ,1 a program on the College litorium at 2:00 p in. this Sunday. Panelists will COLLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS AND SENIORS: The Guidance Department has arranged Admission Process for parents and students to be held in Centrals auditorium at 2:00 p in. th... Vur^fi'^^scntatiyes from the University of /Arkansas, Hendrix, several other in-state institutions, and Rice University 1 he Rice representatives will speak about the college admission process as it applies to highly-sclective colleges We hope the attendance will be such that we will be able to make this an annual program ATTENTION COLLEGE-BOUND STUDENTS: COLLEGE NIGHT IS HERE! You and your parents arc cordiallv nivited to the atmual Little Rock School District College Night at the Convention Center, lower level of the Excelsior Hotel in downtown Little Rock, Thursday evening. Financial aid workshop starts promptly at 6:00 p.m., with browsing at 6'30 Don t forget to come. z . ACCEPT NO BOUNDARIES: Applications are now available for the Accept No Boundaries Prejudice Identification and 5^5?,*?' s a day long seminar designed to promote friendship, learning and harmony. Ihe Retreat VVI he ni'lfl wnHnoccinv CV'trtKoi- 1 A orrl le AXnJ _________ti_________________ \u0026gt; \u0026lt; \u0026gt; \u0026lt; i-v ... II 1_ Lil MJ J J ----1_---------------. o lA IWAlUOllAM) IVUllllXlg OliU iiadUVtiy. 1X1 wi 1 be held Wednesday, October 16, and is free to ANB members. Pick up applications from Mrs. McDennott in room 33X or Ironi an ANB Steering Committee member. THE LADIES CLUB: Ihe Ladies Club will meet during both lunch periods Thursday, Oct. 10th in room 220. Please bring your $3 .00 dues. Do not bring any food ro drinks to the meeting. You will have plenty of time to eat lunch. is the ^LLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS: Have you brought your money and registered for he PSAT? Friday morning dciidline. Bring your moiiey-$9.00 in correct change or a personal check made out to LR Central High. to the Guidance Ollice by 10:00 a.m. Friday. Students who registered after this time will go on the sophomore waiting list FBLA: Any FBLA members not enrolled in a business class and that would like a subscription to the free magazines should come by room 325. e central inon school or mr. central high anyonein TERES IEDMUST BRING A8x 10 black or white or color photograph to room 134. Ihe cost fh,. n,t.,. .etinm -n, photographers will be displayed in the 1997 school yearbook. Troubadours lasts from Monday October 7 to October 25,1996. For more details see Mrs of the competition is $ 10.00 per photo. The arc the sponsors of the contest. The contest Holladay. JUNIORS: Ihe Japen-U.S.Senate Scholarship Program applications are in the Guidance Office. If you are interested in \u0026lt;ni*nziino n ciimmw iti Innon onH kovia nt lanoE n \"i /\"ir* a ___________________i.. a___i _x! . z \u0026lt; ------------------------------------------r *-re-\"-'. vziin.!-. n yuu aic line Japan and have at least a 3.0 GPA, you may apply. Applications must be postmarked by 15. 1996. liach scholarship recipient is required to pay a $500 program contribution. You must also pay some ! domestic travel. See Mrs. Graves. November expenses including program contribution. You must also pay some other EBLA: Attention any member who did not get the 1996-97 calendar of activities and Fall Conference infonnation may eel 1 hlin KllClin / S A rrnm V/Mir hiicinoee foozvl-tav. \"TTnzi 'TT..___J - V  i o this in Room 325A or from your business teacher. The next meeting will be Thursday, October lO. * '?*' Univereity of Arkansas at Fayetteville will have Multi-Cultural Day for Seniors on Monday October 14th. Il you are interested in attending call 1-800-377-8632.DAILY BULLETIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 10, 1996 THURSDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter IZf Richard Boyd L/T Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson Lff Iatriek T illery lixpul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams Expul Earl Westbrook E^ul Erica Singleton-L/T Edmar Higgins Expul. Antimoore Jackson Expul Quentin Davis L/^f Danny Brown LT Rashaad Profit L/T James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove iVt Fabrian Bridgewater Expul 13eon Earnest Expul Ryan Goins 10/9-10/23 Kissy Russell L/T Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris L/T John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard L/T Korey Williams Sem Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1 st Sem Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul Timothy Turner 10/4-10/10 Fred Williams 10/3-10/17 Phillip Hatton L/T Shurrod Smith 10/8-10/15 staff and STUDENTS: The Central High School library is now exhibiting the original art works 01 many prominent ?Vncan Amencan artists including Romare Bearden and Jacob Lawrence. These works on paper s^msoTed b^'^TentrlfH^ This show is STUDENTS: ATTN NATIONAL MERIT SEMIFINALIST: Thursday at the beginning of 1st lunch, meet on the front steps to take a picture for the yearbook. It wont take long dont miss out.   ... :,ieps lu laxc a TOURNAMENT: Please excuse the following students on Thursday, October 10 at 10:20 tnt- VOIIl'V HhI 1 Tni im.'imont of Ui-vTnrs* a__________  w, t* \u0026lt; it . .. a.m. to go to lU V X/ 11 k 11 T X X vrtvuov 111%, iMiiMVTiiig oiuuviiid uii iiiui^ay, MClODcr lu at iu:zo a ir tlK Volleyball Tournament at Mountain Home: Samatha Jones, Anne Davis, Holly Edmonds, Judith Batson Jill And^on, Haley Walker, Courtney Hager, Katara Nowden, Blair Wdllace, Cordelia Bohlar, Heather Alverson, Breanna Brakhop, Misty Lewis. bin CULTURAL SOCIETY: There will be a Black Cultural Society meeting in Mrs. Blevins room 122 during both lunches. I his meeting is very important please plan to be therethank you. A SENIORS: Representatives from the following colleges will be in the Guidance Conference Room next week to talk to prospective applicants If you are interested and meet the colleges admission requirements you may sign the list on the back bulletin board m the Guidance Office BEFORE the dav nf the vi.it emeius. you may sign lulletin in day of Ute visit. Mon., Oct. 14: 11:00 a m. Rice University, Houston, Texas fhurs.. Oct. 17: 2:45 p.m. Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. I  1: Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt. 11:00 a.m. Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. Fri.. Oct. 18: 9:55 a m. Middlebur juniors and SENIORS: The Guidance Department has arranged a program on the College parents and students to be held in Centrals auditorium at 2:00 p.m. this Simday. Panelists wall th . from the University of Arkansas, Hendrix, several other in-state institutions, and Rice University Hie ^cc representatives will speak about the college admission process as it applies to highly-selective colleges We hone the attendance will be such that we will be able to make this an aumual program. =\u0026gt;viecuve colleges, we hope state institutions, and Rice University. ATTENfrION COLLEGE-BOUND STUDENTS: COLLEGE NIGHT IS HERE! You and your parents are cordially in\\ ited to the annual Little Rock School District College Night at the Convention Center, lower levefof the Excelsior I lotel ACCEPT NO BOUNDARIES: Applications are now available for the Accept No Boundaries Prejudice Identification and u m'if-h\"l ts a day long seminar designed to promote friendship, learning anil harmony lire Retreat \"i\" l * a SiSjSmmiS S A' JUNIORSUlavc you brought your money and registered for he PSAT? Friday morning ntrn-. hv 1 \u0026gt;our money-$9.W m correct change or a personal check made out to LR Central High, to tire Guidance Oiliee bv 10:00 a.m. Pridav uho ...:n____xi_____i___ . .  .* '-juiumitv deadline. Bring your money$9.00__________________ _____ i ix vein Oflice by Friday. Students who registered aflerUiis time wilTgo on'thrsophomo^^ is theFBLA: Any FBLA members not enrolled in a business class and that would like a subscription to the free magazines should come by room 325. ATTENTION STUDENTS\nYOU MAY BE THE NEXT MISS CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OR MR CFNTRAI HIGH SCIKXJL. ANYONE INTERESTCD WJST BRING A 8 x 10 black or white orcolor photograph^ooni 134^e cost '97 school yearbook. Troubadours of the competition is $10.00 per photo. The photographers will be displayed in the 1997 school yearbook Troubadours are the sponsors ot the contest. Ihe contest lasts from Monday October 7 to October 25, 1996. For more details see Mrs. Holluday. JUNIORS: Ihe Japen-U.S.Senate Scholarship Program applications are in the Guidance Office. If you are interested in spending a summer m Japan and have at least a 3.0 GPA, you may apply. Applications must be postmarked by Novem 15. 1996. I'.ach scholarship recipient is required to pay a expenses including domestic travel. See Mrs. Graves. November $500 program contnbution. You must also pay some other FBLA: Attention any member who did not get the 1996-97 calendar of activities and Fall Conference infonnation this m Room 325A or from your business teacher. The next meeting will be Thursday, October 10. may get GUIDANCE: Ihe University of /Vkansas at Fayetteville will have Multi-Cultural Day for Seniors on Monday October 14th. II you are interested in attending call 1-8(10-377-8632.  ATTENTION SENIOR REPRESENTATIVES: There will be a meeting of the Senior Council on Friday in Ms Cobbs room (room 337) dunng both lunch periods. Please attend as plans for the Senior Picnic will be finalized. If attendance is sparse at these meeting, the Senior Picnic will be canceled. JUNIORS \u0026amp; SENIORS: Applications for the National Beta Club are available in the Library and Room 239 To be eligible lor membership, you must have a cumulative grade point average (including 9th grade) of at least 3 0 and ha\\ e good citizenship grades, the application deadline is Friday, October 11, 4:00p.m Please join YOUNG DEMOCRATS/TEENAGE REPUBLICANS: If you are 18 before Nov. 5, you are eligible to vote in this years election. You can register by the library during both lunches. Its simple, easy \u0026amp; worthwhile. Remember\n Ihe only wrong choice is no choice.  JUNIORS \u0026amp; SENIORS: If you would like to be nominated for the National Youth Leadership Forum on Defense Intelligence and Diplomacy to be held in Washington D.C. in February, please see Mrs. Graves. You must have a B average. Ihe cost to you is $890 plus transportation to Washington. SENIORS: You may order your caps \u0026amp; gowns \u0026amp; announcements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30th 8 30 1:30 pm. am -DAILY BULL ETIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 11,1996 FRIDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter ITT Richard Boyd ITT Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson l/f Patrick Tillery Expul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams Expul Earl Westbrook Expul Erica Singlclon-I/f Edmar Higgins Expul. Antimoore Jackson Expul Quentin Davis I/f Danny Brown LT Rashaad Profit L/T James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/T Fabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Ryan Goins 10/9-10/23 Kissy Russell L/T Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1 st Acie Cummins jAntonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris IZT Sem John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard L/T Korey Williams Nakita Smith 10/10-10/17 Carl Ragland 10/9-10/23 Anton (jrant 9/9 lo End 1 st Sem Rashee Barnett Expul Rec. Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul Fred Williams 10/3-10/17 Phillip Hatton L7T Shurrod Smith 10/8-10/15 lechers meeting (district dialogue) with Dr. Don Roberts set for October 9 has been rescheduled for Ihursday, October 17, at 4:30 p.m. The meeting will be held m the Central High Schooi Auditorium. FACULTY \u0026amp; STAFF: The University of Arkansas has a limited number of South End zone tickets for Saturdays came ayatnst LoilHiianfl I t^rn in war Mptnnrial StnHinm Ifintomriorl i\n lU., __________r*!______ .2-1- -P against Louisiana I ech in War Memorial Stadium. If interest^ , sign the list on the counter of the main officeprint IcPlhlv nv nn Infpr than 1 1 00A Vn fzYrl A vvM .r**... * 1 UI II u I \u0026lt; Al \u0026lt; i ^7 .. ** ***''**'*^ '*****-vli iiiv wjuiiivi UI uic indin oHicepnni legibly! !-by no later 11:00 a.m. today(Fnday). You must sign in ink so it will be legible on a Fax machine Tickets may be picked up before the 6:00 p.m. kickoff Saturday at Gate 4, War Memorial Stadium. AND^STTJDENTS: Ihe Central High School library is now exhibiting the original art . A A .  .   . Lawrence. i works of many prominent African American artists including Romare Bearden and Jacob Lawrence These works on paper arc from the Arkansas Arts Centers permanent collection and will be on display through October 30th This show is .sponsored by the Central High School P.T.S.A. STUDENTS: THE PIX: Students, we need a Central logo for the 1997 Pix. Please turn in your entries to room 103 bv (kt 21 If we use your entry, you will receive a free yearbook! SPANISH CLASSES: All Spanish Classes will meet in the auditorium Monday, Cktobcr 14 to hear a guest speaker Please be prompt. FUTURE 51)0\nIhe first future 500's meeting will be this Saturday (kt. 12 at the Carver YMCA on 1116 West 14th Street Ihe meeting will be from 10 am. to 12 a.m. and ID. cards will be made for $3.00. If you have not yet turned in vour information sheets, please do so to the guidance office by Friday. THE PIX\nSeniors: Reserve space for your senior before Oct. 15! Bring a down payment, pictures \u0026amp; words to room 103. ATTENTION SENIOR: Senior Picnic tickets will be on sale Thursday, Friday and Monday during both lunch periods in f ill* hcUTK ^t(YrP Tn A pzret IC tA nnzl it inAlnr^oe all tlin Pnbi\u0026lt;i\u0026gt; \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\u0026gt; a.\u0026gt;..\u0026gt;. A -at..Jal__Jll LLI i  .\u0026lt; . - I Tl_  d* A--.-.---.---A .,Fxaaa^ 9 * * J MISU 1 U UI u 9^ Will lUilCll Lz^l iklClo j the bookstore. Jhe cost is $6.00 and it includes all the Corkys Barbeque you can cat. Activities will be held durina the Senior Picnic which is on October 22nd from 2:35pm to 5:00 pm. BLACK CULTURAL SOCIETY: There will be a meeting for the Black Cultural Society, Friday (kt 11 1996 during both lunches in Mrs. Blevins room (122). ORCHESTRA: Please excuse these Orchestra students 5th \u0026amp; 6th period Fri. (kt. 11 th. Ibey will be attending Southern Region Orchestra Clinic in Conway: Jeremy Antipolo, David Beuerman, Maributh Mock. BO(}KSTORE\nStudents please be remind^ that the parking lot across from the library is reserved for those who have Please do not park in that lot if you did not purchase a space. And if you did purchase a space. purchased those spaces. 1_________................... please make sure you park in your assigned space. ATTN.. NATIONAL MERIT SEMIFINALIST\nThursday at the beginning of 1st lunch, meet on the front steps to take a picture for Ihe yearbook. It wont take long dont miss out. VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENT: Please excuse the following students on Thursday, October 10 al 10:20 a m. to go to the Volleyball Tournament at Mountain Home: Samatha Jones, Anne Davis, Holly Edmonds, Judith Batson. Jill ..... . i.a,vui.,uui I.'III... a,u,i,auia rUUlC l..avtS, iUJliy r.UULOllUS. juuiui naison. J III Watson, Anita Bunch, Hillary Anderson, Haley Walker, Courtney Hager, Katara Nowden. Blair Wallace, Cordelia Bohlar, Heather Alverson, Breanna Brakhop, Misty Lewis.JUNIORS \u0026amp; SENIORS: Representatives from the following colleges will be in the Guidance Conference Room next wee.. lo la... to prospectiyc applirants II/pu arc interested and meet the colleges admission requirements, you may sign the list on the back bulletin board m Ihe Guidance Office BEFORE the day of Sie visit.  * week Io lalk lo Mon.. (X't. 14:11:00 a m. Rice University, Houston, Texas I hurs.. Oct. 17: 2:45 p m. Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. i. IV,. 1 u. Q.ss Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt. Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. I ri.. Oct. 18: 9:55 a.m. Middlcbi 11:00 a.m. COLLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS AND SENIORS: fhe Guidance Department has arranged a program on the College Admission I roccss lor parents and students to be held in Centrals auditorium al 2:00 p.m. this* Sunday. Panelists wall '^'^^representatiyes Irom the University of Arkansas, Hendrix, several other in-state institutions, and Rice University I he Riee representatives will speak alrout the college admission process as it applies to highly-selective colleges We hope the attendance will be such that we will be able to make this an annual program. wueges. we nope ATTENTION COLLEGE-BOUND STUDENTS: COLLEGE NIGHT IS HERE! You and vour narents are cordiallv in\\ ited to the 1 -itlle Rock School District College Night at the Convention Center, lower Icve/of the ! xcelsior 1 liilel Xm l'evening. Financial aid workshop starts promptly at 6:00 p.m., with browsing at 6:30. l/vJll I IvHgvl lU CXIlTiV, ACCEPT NO BOUNDARIES: Applications Reduction Retreat. Hie Retreat is a day long seminar are now available for the Accept No Boundaries Prejudice Identification and xiiiik k liXv YzA W resigned to promote friendship, learning ana harmony llie Retreat 33g members. Pick up applications from Mrs. MclXinJlott in 3.^8 or Irom an ANB Steering Committee member. room THE LADI^ES CLUB: Hie I\u0026gt;adics Club will meet during both lunch periods Thursday, Oct. 10th in room 220 Please bnng your $3.00 dues. Do not bnng any food ro drinks lo the meeting. You will have plenty of time to eat lunch. is the COLLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS: Have you brought your money and registered for he PSAT? Friday morning is the onite'hv !\" pCTSonal check made out to LR Central High. to the (Juidanee OllKL h) lO.OO am. 1 nday. Students who registered after this time will goon the sophomore waiting list. S 1\"ANYOW^lJw SM high SCHOOL OR MR. CEWfRAL HIGH o fh,.* i. A or while or color photograph to room 134. The cost photographCTs will be displayed in the 1997 school yearbook. Troubadours lasts from Monday October 7 to October 25, 1996. For more details see Mrs of the competition is $ 10.00 per photo. Ibe are the sponsors of the contest. Ilie contest Holladay. a|V..7iIh f Applications for the National Beta Club are available in Ihe Library and Room 239 To be , must have a cumulative grade point average (including 9lh grade) of al least 3 0 and have good citizenship grades. Ilic application deadline is Friday, (Xitober 11, 4:00p.m. Please join. ?'30 pm*^' gowns \u0026amp; announcements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30lh 8:30 am -P E C I A L To: \"Th Molt B*utiful High School m Central High School 1500 Park Straat Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone (501) 324-2300 October 7, 1996 P.S.A.T. BULLETIN READ NOW, THEN KEEP UMTlZ. Staff directly affected by PSAT testing on Tuesday, October 15: otr. I Alve son, Becker, Brandon, Caldwell, Caruth, N. Callaway, Cobb, Colburn, Col Cox, Daniel, Deitz, Dixon, Dumas, Futrell, Gadberry, J. Gray, Hammons, Hardin, Hargis, Holladay, Jernigan, Ligon, McDermott, McDonald, McLendo Hammons, Moore, A.Nash, Pedigo, Pierce, Pittman, Rosenberger, Rutledge, L.Thomps Watson, Williamson From: Rudolph Howard, Principal Copies: Counselors and Assistant Principals\nMr. Givens\nC. Williams The PSAT will be administered to about 375 juniors and sophomores Oct. 15, periods 1-3 and possibly into 1st lunch.  ' on Tuesd This undertaking can be managed only with the cooperation and flexibility of EVERYBODY involved, logistics are complex due to our limited space, inconveniences. P\"l ease read t'h i s master plan carefully. There will be unavoidable Note how it will affect you and your students. Let Mr. Blair or me know IMMEDIATELY if you see something that won't workDON'T WAIT UNTIL THE DAY OF THE TEST. I. 100 desks to be moved to Library to supplement the 90 stations available there now. Total capacity: 190. (All Library testers^jrs. NEEDS: 190. II . III. 2 classrooms to test junior overflow: 4 classrooms to test sophomores: Rooms 214 and 216 58 maximum Rooms 333, 336, 338, and 339--120 max IMPLEMENTATION, SOPHOMORE TESTING: ROOM 333 - will test 30. Ms. Thompson and her students will meet in Ms. D. McDonald's Room 236 on Tuesday, pds. 2 \u0026amp; 3. advance and post a reminder on the door. ROOM 336 - will test 30. rooms. Tell students in Ms. Becker and her students will meet in the Tell students and post a reminder on the door: Pd. 1 - to Room 248 (Hammons) Pd. 2 - to Room 342 (Cole) Pd. 3 - to Room 335 (Caldwell) ROOM 338 rooms. will test 30. Ms. McDermott's classes will meet in these Tell students and post a reminder on the door: Pd. 1 - to Room 251 (Dixon) Pd. 2 - to Room 246 (Deitz) Pd. 3 - to Room 250 (A. Nash) ROOM 339 will test 30. Ms. Hargis's students should all be testing. If any are not, send them to Ms. McDermott in the roomS listed above IMPLEMENTATION, JUNIOR TESTING: A. CUSTODIANS will move 40 desks with smooth. large-surface tops from Room 125 to the Library at the beginning of 5th period on MONDAY AFTERNOON, OCT. 14. (Mr. Givens, please have custodians at Room 12! junior testing (continued) 96/page 2 ready to begin as soon as halls clear at 1:40 p.m.) crew will move the desks back to the study hall (125) 1:40 p.m.--on Wednesday. The same custodian at the same time- B. C. D. E. During the last 10 minutes of 5th period on Tuesday, period students will move desks to the Library, period on Monday, Ms. Caruth's students will move her desks to the Lib- , then meet the remainder of 6th period in Ms. rary Note: Ms . Pedigo's 5th At the BEGINNING of 6t Jernigan's room 237 If it is important to you to get your ov/n desks back instead of someone else's, you may want to supervise ycur students' moving of the desks back to your classroom right after the test (4th pd.) on Tuesday. ROOM 143 day. Pd. 1 Pd. 2 Pd. 3 Pd . 4 Ms . Pedigo and her students will meet in these rooms Please tell them and post a reminder on the door: on Tues - to Room 147 (Mr. Moore) - to Room 134 (Ms. Holladay) - to Room 148 (Mr. Watson) - Students report to Library to move desks back to room ROOM 145 - Ms. Caruth's students will move 30 desks to the Library duri\nthe first 5 minutes of 6th period on Monday, theJt meet in Room 237. Caruth and her students will meet in these rooms Pd. Pd. Pd. Pd. 1 to Room. 235 (Ms. Williamson) 2 - to Room 239 (Ms. Hardin) 3 - to Room 151 (Ms. Rutl6:dge) 4 Students Ms on Tuesday: report, to Library to move desks b^l( k to ROOM 214 - Ms. Pittman and her students will meet in these rooms on Tuesday. Please announce and post a reminder: Pd. 1 - to Room 113 (Ms. Colburn) Pd. 3 - to Room 104a (Mr. Gray) ROOM 216 - Ms. Gadberry's students should all be taking it. them to Coach Cox in 218. If any are not, send Final notes: The PSAT last year ran right up to 12:00. We did not run over into first lunch, but if it should happen this year, students whose 4th period classrooms are in xise will need to eat 1st lunch on Tuesday. STUDY HALL TEACHERS: Study halls will meet in the study hall teacher's own classon Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning. Please tell students and post a reminder on the door of 125. Also, detention halls will have to meet elsewhere Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning (Auditorium?) room Period 4 study hall students should be instructed to eat 1st lunch Tuesday , then assist custodians in moving chairs back to Room 125 soon as the halls clear at 12:35 p.m. on as THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATIONSpage 1 of 5 Monday, Oct. lA, 1996 TEACHERS: SPECIAL BULLETIN The following students (juniors) are to report directly to the rooms indicated on Tuesday, October 15, 1996, at 8:40 a.m. to take the PSAT/NATIONAL MERIT SCHOLARSHIP QUALIFYING TEST. three hours. The testing session will last a little over Students are to report promptly at 8:40 with two (2) sharpened pencils with erasers, f '  . . ... of the test. Please remind your students of the date, time, and place REPORT TO LIBRARY pCiAci Is. skccr loe-Torg- Abson , Adams, Alverson, Alverson, Anderson, Anderson, Anderson, Anderson Antipolo, (A - P) Brian Chris Heather Ryan Hillary Julie Quincy Tamara Jeremy Armstrong, Clifton Bailey , Sherrhonda Ball, John Bailey, Whitney Baldwin, Cassie Batson, Judith Bauman, Katie Beasley, Demeatrice Binz, Kristen Blackmon, Ro mar Blann, Barbara Carpenter, Olivia Blanchard, Nick Block, Michael Chester, Daniel Bohanan, Donald Cleveland, Lawrence Bonner, Marlon Cole, Tekima Boyette, Chris Bradley, Lacey Brainard, Branch, Brewer, Brown, Brown, Brown, Anne Eunice Anthony Carrie LaTonya Tony Buchanan, April Buck, Buen, Call, David Kristina Seth Collins, Cook, Corbin, Cowart, Dang, Darnell, Davidson, Davis, Davis, Tina Timothy Tanya Lauren Minh Scott Darren Anne Arica Dayananda, Dedner, Denman, Dowell, Nilu Cynthia Monica KatiePSAT - JUNIORS (continued I page 2 of 5 Library: Mon.. Oct. (4-, 1996 Downing, Whitney Guy, Clarence Houston, Randall Earlywlne, Ashley Hall, Jesse Irving, Stewart Edmonds, Holly Hall, Kathryn Ismael, Brooke Elmore, Leah Hampton, Herlanda Jackson, Ralph Hardy, Kumari Ely, Jessica Hayes, Christie Jarsma, Kim Enoch, Kim Hayes, Nicole Jenkins, Elizabeth Farrell, Tim Hearon, Tom Jennings, Laura Faulkner, Adam Fergurson, Kelly Heister, David Johnson, Britt Finn, Flick, Katrina Michael Hester , John Johnson, Camela Flowers, Kristi Hicks, Chastity Johnson, Ceaser Flullen, Larry Flye, Henson Hicks, Lindsey Hildebrande, Natalie Johnson, Christopher C. Fox, Allen Hines, Megan Johnson, Josh Franke, Christen Hintergardt, Jared Johnson, Katie Freeland, Michael Hoffman, Patrick Jones, Jones, Carletta Christina Gardner, Freeman Holden, Laura Beth Jones, Crystal Ghori, Safiya Holland, Emily Jones, Harold Glasier, Evan Holloway, Tywana Jones, John P. Gray, Amanda Holmes, Margaret Keen, April Grimmett, Jeff House, Erin Kilgore, CollinsPSAT JUNIORS (continued) page 3 of LIBRARY: Korte, Leslie Miller, Emmett Oct. , 1996 Passini, Rusty Krupitsky, Eugene Mitchell, Jay Perry, SuLauren Langford, Laura Mitchell, Maury Peters, Jessica Latch, Ashley Moore, Angela Pettus, Todd Lilly, Keith Morrison, Alicia Powell, Jennifer Lipsmeyer, Kara Morton, Kelly Prewitt, Jennifer Ludwig, Stefan Mosley, Nikki Purvis, Benjamin Malvin, Katrina Neal, Josh Putterman, J Ames Mapili, Gazele Nguyen, Freddy REPORT TO ROOM\n216 (Jt - S) M]^', GADBERRY Martinez, Andrea Nicks, Lyncola Ray, Rimmer, Cora Virginia Massie, James Nugent, Courtney Norman, Varnell Robinson, Marie Mezza, McCoy, Leslie Norris, Tiffany '' Lydia Obiaga, Genese Rose, Meghan McCullum, Prentice McElderry, Jacob Oden, Cassie Sampson, Aaron McCulen, McJunkin, Crystal Jeremy Owens, Erin Saviers, Marshall McGrew, Justin McMullen, Ahmad Packard, Clay Schiller, Lauren McKindra, Fatima Padgett, Sara Schmalz, Lea Mehlin, Wayne Pan, Dan Schmidt. Geoffrey Miller, Ashley Pasha, Khaleelah Sevier, SharondaPSAT - JUNIORS (continued) page A of 5 Scott, Mark REPORT TO ROOM: 214 Washington, LaTasha (T - Z ) Sclvally, Robyn Tappin, Jacqueline Webb, Josh Shaw , Tashia Taylor, Elliott Wilson, Jamie Sheth , Seema Thomas, Brian Wirth-Jones, Sasha Shaffer, Zarinah Thomas, Jenny Anne Wittenberg, Justin Simmons, Kerri Thomas, Katrina Wright, Sarah Sims, Corakeita Thompson, Jeffrey Yarbrough, Elizabeth Slaughter, Maribeth Thompson, Jill Smith, Jake Thrist, Andrea Smith, Sam Tiner, Natalie Spann, Jeremy Toombs, Michael Torrence, Vincent Sparks, Tava Trice, Trent Stacey, LaTlsha Tucker, Courtney Stanley, Rebecca Tucker, Justin Steadman, Zach Turner, Levy Steelman, Amanda Vickers, Leigh Stefanova, Boriana Wage, Aaron Steward, Doug Walters, Ben Sullivan, Jessica Warriner, Prenticepage of 5 5 Monday, Oct. 14, 1996 SPECIAL BULLETIN TEACHERS: The following students (sophomores) are to report directly to the rooms indicated below on TUESDAY, October 15, 1996, at 8:40 a.m. to take the PSAT/NATIONAI MERIT SCHOLARSHIP QUALIFYING TEST. three (3) hours. The testing session will last a little over Students report promptly at 8:40 with two (2) sharpened pe\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_748","title":"Test data","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":["1991/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Test data"],"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/748"],"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\nState Benchmark Exams 1998-99 through 2000-01 Mathematics and Literacy Grades 4 and 8J. ^'i 'Aiiaf i r^iiiv.^ri~i\u0026amp;\u0026lt;tA'^*'ftito 4 /i Grade 4 Mathematics !. (-i- 4 r Pefcent fiwfident and Advanced In 1998-99 In 1999-00 In 2000-01 ' (. State 34% 41% * 48% i' *  'r\u0026lt; K\u0026gt; 4 . s S: LRSD PCSSD NLR 22% 30% 30% w ??% 43% 'W w '  '- tS 'if' J?' } s^i w* ? '-5 jtA ) 1 a as\u0026gt;ni 'U \u0026lt; 4 s Wj Ml V \u0026gt;*  5^'J' f* Grade 4 Mathematics \u0026gt; X  4-w  Percent PfOficiefit and Advanced -i. .f in 1998-99\n-In 1999-00: in 2000-01:  State Black LRSD White Black White 9% 14% 1. 18% Ho 44% 49% 57% k. 8% 15% 16% rW s. JS^ V 53% 61%  3 A  I * '  \u0026lt;\"J. ij i i i ! 1 4. Grade 4 Mathematics Highest Perforttiihg 3^\nMost Impfoved \" ' iX / , t i I 1. ? Jefferson 64% Baseline +23 Forest Park 57% Bale +19 Fulbright 53% Williams 52% Terry Gibbs, Carver 48% 46% ***   ' 44% 'i'. McDermott 44%  Fair Park +18  Franklin +14  Fulbright +11 Tejry +10 Badgett +9 Booker ,4 :fr' 1 * ' ^1 T \"1^! .1  't \u0026lt; 4 I Grade 4 Mathematics Below Basic f/- -'S.'.i .\u0026lt;.4UI^ 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 f I''*' \u0026gt; { 59% 55% 51% A*- Z''. v\n4 y-^ '\"A' .f 5 ,  ?5- 'tiLf e e r Grade 4 Mathematics Below Basic Xi* fi ,5 Lowest Percent .--'-'A. --. '''.''f :x A,  I  ' i Most Improved !r\u0026lt; ::  \u0026lt; [ f' Jefferson  Fulbright  Gibbs  Williams  Terry 14% 26% 29% 30% 33% .1  Bale  Fair Park  Baseline  Cloverdale Jefferson 36 28 22 21 17 6 3 i. .iiZ Ci if-X 'kJ } Grade 4 Literacy Percent Proficient aiid Advanced 't'y'.' -.t- - In 1998-99 - In 1999-00\n- In 2000-01: State 44% 47% 43% LRSD PCSSD NLR 32% 42% 35% ??% 34% ??% ??% 41% I.. m^2.4,. rlix.\n: * 79: ' i 4 ] 1 4 irt. jlb*..' Grade 4 Literacy r\u0026lt;r\".rrr JPefcefit Prc^ci^ntiajid Adviced ?/' i. V 'fr\u0026lt; . \u0026lt;' .i -In 1998-99: -In 1999-00: In 2000-01 State Black White 21% 51% 26% 21% a. 53% 51%   LRSD Black White 20% 30% V 23% 5- 62% 66% .'A ' 63%  x- -ia * S  .-4  -A- ? ^5 8 sA.'    -I.. in. \u0026gt; f .t' A 1 Grade 4 Literacy Ai 'S\u0026gt; r^J Highest i s\u0026lt; fl ''!t\n^iji' ^1 .4 Mfti r' \u0026lt;* .\u0026lt;- ? .+,i' ' i '\u0026gt; fij rA\u0026gt;\ni***' V'  Jefferson 95%  Fulbright 74% Forest Park 71%  Williams 52% Jefferson +24 Fair Park +14 Wakefield +11 e': V '-'.\\ *n': Terry 49% McDermott 47% Booker Baseline Bale + 9 + 4 *  ? \u0026lt; a' /  r?'. y'\u0026gt; (jibhs Vv' .k 1^1. 45%^ T, /A *7 Rockefeller 45% 'W I  [ Y\nX\nJ 'A' sJi 'i?- vS/Vt\nr- i k-'.yz'- nsgH1 . J Grade 4 Literacy BelbW Basic V.L. 4\n.A?f V'.'' .V 1 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 t I r. I-  . 41% 28% 32% 10 V 4, 'Ji s ' 3' -^4Grade 4 Literacy Below Basic .V'' .4 J'' 1 A Lowest Percent Jefferson Fulbright Forest Park McDermott Gibbs\nS.\\ Williaths Rockefeller L'\"- 0% 7% 9% 12^ i' 13% 14% f Most Improved Wakefield Wilson Jefferson Cloverdale Mabel vale '* 'h iH' v7 Booker 3 17 15 14 13 9 'tr?' i 8 11 r \u0026gt;ry' 3^ Ma a J i t Grade 8 Mathematics A  Percent Proficient and Advanced .t. ^z - In f^99-00: - In 2000-01: ,i State 21% LRSD PCSSD NLR 9% 17% ??% 14% ??% 15% f A- f, I 'n .f' 12 Jl*t 1 ) i I Grade 8 Mathematics \u0026gt;5^ Percent Proficient and Advanced State Black White i' LRSD Black White 1111999-00 In 2000-01\ny/' V: H' \"j c n, 3% 4% -4r* X h' k'l 19% 27% 2% 4% jiy 28% 45% ti 'J: {'\"i h . '.4*I 1 Grade 8 Mathematics ft- V li! LV'' \u0026lt;* Highest Performing J: Most Improved / J !*\u0026lt;\u0026gt; Pulaski Heights 32% Pulaski Heights 4-22  . Mirt,'.\n:.i \" *.'*7  ' '1. ' 'AiPF' ' Mann Dunbhr 29% 23% Mann Dunbar +12 + 9 \u0026lt; .y A, -'i-u I' t ' 14 'i. ,',  i-- 2:'AX\ng'.1 i 1 J Grade 8 Mathematics BelbWBasic  1999-2000 2000-2001 58% 55% tl '* t r? J r 'i\nr Lf- V'. u'-.-i. jf'W ?' i 15 : j-^ -j .j' Grade 8 Mathematics 1 Below Basic '1  'rr'-e 1- Lowest Percent Most Improved Mann 31%  Pulaski Heights -11 V. Pulaski Heights 42% Cloverdale 6 A \u0026lt;w ^j3\ni\nf t-- VI .1 .t ^55'^ 4 f j.' ' 16 '5^\nI 0 'i I Grade 8 Literacy Percent Proficient and Advanced State LRSD PCSSD NLR 5? 1999-2000 2000-2001 ??% 37% 15% 31% ??% 26% ??% 26%  V- C'r f k T. J'. 7, itet\n-V. i'T- I ft.' I, i'A r' i- V''^'5 t- A 7 \u0026gt; ' - 8^ 4 .. I j ! Grade 8 Literacy I- a Percent Proficient and Advanced \u0026gt; j. *7? -In 1999-00: -In 2000-01: State Black White 9% 16% 29% 44% LRSD Black White 4: 1. 8% 18% 32% 61% J:. 18 vlU.. r f. Grade 8 Literacy Highest Perfouning Most Improved Forest Heights 48% Pulaski Heights 45%  Forest Heights +31  Pulaski Heights+26 M' Mann \u0026lt;Sr' 7 -A- 44% t,- Dunbar Mabelvale V -f- +23 +21 X # \u0026gt; 'at.Grade 8 Literacy B^ldWBasic  / .  'J 5l( iS 'r.  1999-2000  2000-2001 5? 46% 33% I 'O* ViL f - ! 'Mr'' i.i- *f' I 1 20 0 i . -  \u0026lt; :I J I Grade 8 Literacy Helbw Basic r Lowest Percent Most Improved  Mann 17%  Forest Heights 25%  Pulaski Heights 27%  Mabelvale  Dunbar -26 -24 Mabelyale L)unbar r- V .'.hi 4 HdhdersPh 1 % 31% 32% ' J.'.'.*- ' Forest Heights -18 Hhhdersori -11 t-\n'5' .r.-v -* .1. \u0026gt;\u0026lt;e \u0026gt;' '.x f 21. \u0026lt; l^,Jli^'U. J 4i i.- tp j W Grade 4 Mathematics 'A*\n' 1* 'V' Highlights 'f**' ?}.? \u0026gt;\u0026gt; rc* 'r\u0026gt;- ii i-i '. J I- Percelit Proficient/Advanced did not 'm'- .*\n- \u0026gt;J fl. - . '{: vJviA^\nX'r decline\n8 points above baseline year. Percent Below Basic went down 4 points in one year and 8 points in two years. 18 schools improved. 1 7 i' S' \u0026gt; 't'  ' t.tf ^'. ' v-^\nh A- 22 \u0026gt;1'4 1 1 j Grade 4 Literacy Hishlights if. ....-, iSj.\nEVenjthoUgh'doy^^  Bistiict is still S^pdirits ahead of baseline year, compared to state s decline of one point since baseline year. percent performing Below Basic down 9 points since baseline year, compared to 6 5 for state !.-r-h .\u0026lt;V' XV .!\u0026gt;, 'f H-j. i.'-^l f. ,11 '\u0026lt;fc :*! 8 schools impfoyed\n3, stayed the s^ihe  'st \"i-.'r/ Jefferson scored 95%! ! i / iW' '3 M f  r 323, v1 Grade 8 Mathematics 4 Xtju \u0026gt;' '-Is !^,i X\n'm' B XsS-ii-''\" Sdoresw^^eilt up 8 points^ cOii^ sWs the state 7 of the 8 middle schodls improved t ek rtf- District out-performed NLR and PCSSD. ' 7 * Percent Below Basic went down 3 points 9 compared to 0 ppiutS for the State r!'.vV 2 \"I, u t * -'U, ? \u0026gt; V a\u0026gt; J 24 7 ^4^ A aJ Grade 8 Literacy Highlights \u0026lt;: I J A District improved 16 points^ comp^ed to ? 13 for the state. This area most improved of four tests All 8 middle schools improved. Percent at Below Basic declined 13  W-V- .f.' points, as compared to 9 for M ERSDdht pdrfoffled^ 4 V. PCSSD t' \"I j .1:\n1 '1 vi-25  t' .'fkir Grade 4 Mathematics .'/.^7CVr' ff Plans for Improvement Si Si :k V. ^4 Classfoom and homeWrk practice Sets S .k' '^i-Uk? aligned with Benchmark items have already been developed and distributed to schools it' .* for use in grades 3-5 rM *t .\u0026gt; WM tl V. Parent packets have Been developed arid I-'/v disseminated to each elementary school to ,f' x provide information and include activities forparehts to hefothieir children. t^, \u0026gt;* fp- * !# s,*' 26 W' 't r I L i iv^ K?3^ -^os  r'^5 ) i Grade 4 Mathematics Continued V j- L*\u0026gt;4 A \u0026lt; e t 3' -Lead teachers will facilitate after-school study groups to deepen teacher understanding of curriculum and to plan -f'- collaboratively A Mathematics staff will work collaboratively with principals to deyeloj) pl^S fbf - 4 itnproved .achievement\n, including plans for Content training for teachers. t SWiO'V ) -.4 Grade 4 Mathematics G ontinued iw fr-f 5\" ' '1^'' ^4^ - End-of-^module ctiteHon-referenced tests win be given after each mathematics modotile to keep track of student achievement on on-going basis. \u0026gt;- :r'AV.  yfi'' f^: \u0026lt; V- Students in grade 4 m 2001-Q2 will 'h^ RS'-y  .4 '\u0026gt; .'4- experienced the new curriculum for two yearS\"iirst timesb we should see gaitis 28. 25^:ni. Grade 4 Literacy J plans for ImproYement \u0026lt;*? 9.9^!^. Identify present 3^^ grade students who perforttied below grade level on the DRA(at the end of last 1 'v'ii' year) Identify present 4* grade students who are below grade level in reading (based upon combination of ALT score, classroom performance, and teacher V- i .1 '. .-.J  -i input) l\u0026gt;j' f i... :^- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; rain all grade^eaehers on adriimistfhddn oftheDRA .e - .t\" /\u0026gt; Ji  ' :i s.\"t -b i\n..Jt *\u0026gt; 5V.^\u0026lt;\u0026lt;Sfe V t  ' ih ^\n.W\n-i .1 .** 1 ! i\ni*. t Grade Four Literacy Plans for Lnrprover^ iAAM\u0026lt;Ua^adMUU*J\u0026lt;at2t r Administer the DRA40 all identified 3S1\u0026amp; 4*^\ngrade Students z--, ci- *y\u0026gt;' \u0026amp; Using those results, teachers write SAIPs on all students below grade level on the newly administered DRA. SAIPs would include providing instruction in guided reading, comprehension and writing - .y -y t Provide fiaining on guided reading, / bompreheh^idhahdCOtih^^^ grade teachers, beginning with teachers who have not ? k, had Effective Literacy 30 O I tV. J Grade F our Literacy Bitf irrthitii^ *1 \\4'' i-^ rc\u0026lt;i\u0026lt; FlausTfbrdmprovement 'Wt 't Pfoviae^training Monitor for Implementation 1. Develop Literacy Checklist 2. Continue classroom visitations and teacher demonstrations 3 aiS '?\u0026gt;/\u0026lt; c A\n.v ** .b t \u0026gt;*:'V mI dohtihhe dh-site ihdivii^uaii^ed grade level staff f development \" ' XJi V *K Provide all 3*^**, 4*, and 5^ grade teachers with six\nthemes of reading and writing prompts with iruhrics tailored to our reading program and correlated to the State Benchmark Exam \u0026gt;- f i y -- K* ? i*- Ji .!H. i KiX ,r f^* i * j_A-----?y . \u0026gt; - --- - -\u0026lt;---I Grade Si^atliematics 5'' Plans for^mprovemenh:, ^4f \"/S-vf. }\u0026gt; \u0026gt; # C\u0026gt; 'i-''i\u0026amp;V a! VT\u0026amp; 2. Developed and disMbuted for grades 6-8 '.V\u0026gt; classroom and homework practice sets aligned with Benchmark items. j- S Assigned two lead teachers to middle schools to provide support. OK  K ?' v' i. aV- I K' a Developed pacing guides for grades 6-8 to ensure\n?cp^er^ge- ofcriticalcontent r-tl \u0026lt; , Jt.' ..V' -All rH,' 32, i ,i.s' 1 1 Grade 8 Matnematics Gontinued - i J:  \\ End-Of-module diiterion-teferehced tests will be given after each module to keep ftack of student achievement on on-goihg y basis i \u0026gt; \u0026gt;- t-\n' VK Students taking the Benchmark in 2002 mil have had three years of Connected Mathemeities orie year in J). 4 a 2001) I F * \u0026gt; 1 IJ t jbgj \u0026lt;d* . y 33 fti-. i .1' i :jiiw 3'^ i * i*lJ. r* '' '^l-- .aaJMh ' -\" v'jyv*' *5^ iiirifaniitfcifatkr j^tos^foij^pro^ Af' -%\u0026gt;}. I-\n:*\"- \u0026gt;v. 'V ' Oi \u0026lt;*,'4!^: iOfeS Develop stratfegi\u0026lt;^lati\u0026amp;fbf  \u0026lt; I each school. Develop strategic plans for improvement for \u0026gt;-. ,f=' vA  'V W' ' fc - - iy- identified teachers Conduct quarterly check-point sessions at  , ' ' '\"i each school. Provide teacherded workshops on /hi Practices 99 Vx Best 34 K* -tr  t Iy b ( Grade 8 \"Literacy J Gontinued A,: i^ \u0026lt; '1 il^ 'Sv v T'acilitate interschool and intraschool collaboration and fearii teacliihg. e ' ' M '*i*?*i. *\n .A J: jk\u0026gt; ^\n'W''K Implement comprehension strategies in Mosaic of Thought Continue training in Mosaic of Thought Strategies throughsummer2002 \"nt'\nf 'i\" Jt' *  A  \" 'i rA i' ^T* i:. II?' :iSt S' f ti\" 51 I 14\n% i-t 'ft iai: I* ^1 s ) ' / \u0026gt;*?5 u* if iSSiS' 4^ \u0026gt;'?f o* Wi '!*' sj*3 '' -xc 'HJ''RKOESVEI JtL 2 * innt (i (ifHCfcC ^54 Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge' June 27, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Ste. 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: As per your telephone request of June 24, I am enclosing the following:  five years of SATO data, by school and race, and . two years of DRA data by school and race. We have not yet received the results of the State Benchmarks. Yours truly. Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg Enclosures cc: Dr. Kenneth James Junious Babbs Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032Developmental Reading Assessment The LRSD began the administration of the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) in fall 1999 (pre-test). The school year's post-test was administered in late spring 2000. Both tests were administered again in 2000-01. ORA scores are reported below as the percent of students by grade who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level. \"Readiness\" is defined as the necessary knowledge and skills for success at the next grade level. One-Year Changes Table 1 displays the schools' kindergarten scores by grade level so that the one-year change can be visible. Tables 2 and 3 display the grade 1 and grade 2 scores, respectively. received JUL 2 - omcfof DESESnON mowing 1School LRSD Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Seyer Springs Sibbs Jefferson .King__________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Table 1 Percent Readiness, Kindergarten Spring 2000 and Spring 2001 Spring 2000 72.2 21.6 58.5 51.1 81.0 76.9 80.5 56.1 56.4 86.5 68.3 55.8 64.3 94.5 85.1 89.2 89.5 63.6 61.0 94.8 77.4 90.6 90.4 82.5 92.1 75.8 66.7 40.8 91.9 46.8 81.2 56.4 75.0 89.1 66.7 69.2 Spring 2001 80.7 50.0 59.0 94.0 89.6 93.4 90.4 70.9 82.5 80.0 75.6 82.9 58.6 94.0 87.7 93.4 83.9 80.5 73.3 94.3 77.1 92.3 90.6 84.9 80.5 76.2 86.4 66.1 86.7 61.1 84.1 73.7 73.0 89.7 80.0 46.2 Change 8.5 28.4 0.5 42.9 8.6 16.5 9.9 14.8 26.1 -6.5 7.3 27.1 -5.7 -0.5 2.6 4.2 -5.6 16.9 12.3 -0.5 -0.3 1.7 0.2 2.4 -11.6 0.4 19.7 25.3 -5.2 14.3 2.9 17.3 -2.0 0.6 13.3 -23.0 2School LRSD Badgett_______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Seyer Springs Sibbs Jefferson King AAabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Table 2 Percent Readiness, Grade 1 Spring 2000 and Spring 2001 Spring 2000 53.6 5.9 66.7 29.6 69.3 34.9 76.1 26.8 28.4 58.3 62.5 69.8 57.6 61.0 46.8 65.9 69.1 56.6 50.8 80.4 70.0 25.0 67.7 50.0 35.7 76.3 59.6 23.5 47.1 22.0 35.5 24.7 81.4 84.1 82.9 84.2 Spring 2001 63.8 26.5 66.6 70.8 87.4 53.5 91.8 51.2 33.9 73.5 72.7 80.0 58.9 66.6 38.6 71.4 73.9 66.6 60.5 87.9 66.6 25.0 69.6 61.7 41.7 65.2 76.5 51.0 59.8 66.6 41.1 66.6 55.6 97.1 53.8 61.5 Change 10.2 20.6 -0.1 41.2 18.1 18.6 15.7 24.4 5.5 15.2 10.2 10.2 1.3 5.6 -8.2 5.5 4.8 10.0 9.7 7.5 -3.4 0 1.9 11.7 6.0 -11.1 16.9 27.5 12.7 44.6 5.6 41.9 25.8 13.0 -29.1 -22.7 3School LRSD Badgett_______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson __________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Table 3 Percent Readiness, Grade 2 Spring 2000 and Spring 2001 Spring 2000 67.5 11.8 72.1 47.1 79.8 70.8 81.8 38.6 57.9 51.7 62.9 89.6 81.2 79.3 72.5 80.5 71.1 80.8 43.4 67.1 57.9 48.6 87.2 45.2 94.7 71.4 68.8 31.3 81.2 40.0 63.3 54.4 89.5 89.7 60.4 78.3 Spring 2001 75.4 42.9 81.4 60.5 81.4 79.6 93.1 52.1 45.1 82.8 67.7 85.7 83.6 88.7 66.0 82.9 85.0 85.6 63.0 89.6 75.0 50.0 90.5 74.5 70.5 84.2 81.6 61.4 67.1 54.4 81.4 51.2 91.7 92.6 61.4 86.5 Change 7.9 31.1 9.3 13.4 1.6 8.8 11.3 13.5 -12.8 31.1 4.8 -3.9 2.4 9.4 -6.5 2.4 13.9 4.8 19.6 22.5 17.1 1.4 3.3 29.3 -24.2 12.8 12.8 30.1 -14.1 14.4 18.1 -3.2 2.2 2.9 1.0 8.2 4Performance Levels Table 4 below displays a comparison for the District and by school of the spring 2000 and spring 2001 kindergarten scoresthe percent of students who scored at or above the readiness level. Tables 5 and 6 provide the results for first grade and second grades, respectively. The schools shaded black are those schools with 80 percent or more students scoring at or above the \"readiness\" level. Sray-shaded schools are those with 50-79 percent of the students scoring at the \"readiness\" level. The schools in white boxes are those schools with fewer than half (0-49 percent) of the students scoring at the \"readiness\" level. 5Table 4 Percent Readiness, Kindergarten, 2000 and 2001 All Students School LRSD Average McDermott Fulbright Rightsell Terry Mitchell Otter Creek Jefferson Gibbs Williams Dodd Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Washington Booker Carver Meadowcliff Brady______ Rockefeller Western Hills Woodruff Fair Park Wilson______ Romine Franklin King Mabelvale Bale Cloverdale Watson Chicot Forest Park Baseline Wakefield Garland Badgett 1999-2000 72.2 94.8 94.5 92.1 91.9 90.6 90.4 89.5 89.2 89.1 86.5 85.1 82.5 81.2 81.0 80.5 77.4 76.9 75.8 75.0 69.2 68.3 66.7 66.7 64.3 63.6 61.0 58.5 56.4 56.4 56.1 55.8 51.1 46.8 40.8 21.6 School LRSD Average McDermott Baseline Fulbright Gibbs Brady Mitchell Otter Creek Carver Williams Booker Geyer Springs Terry Romine Pulaski Heights Washington Jefferson Forest Park Cloverdale King Rightsell Dodd Wilson Meadowcliff Rockefeller Fair Park Watson Mabelvale Western Hills Chicot Stephens Wakefield Bale Franklin Badgett Woodruff 2000-01 80.7 94.3 94.0 94.0 93.4 93.4 92.3 90.6 90.4 89.7 89.6 87.7 86.7 86.4 84.9 84.1 83.9 82.9 82.5 80.5 80.5 80.0 80.0 77.1 76.2 75.6 73.7 73.3 73.0 70.9 66.1 61.1 59.0 58.6 50.0 46.2 6Table 5 Percent Readiness, Grade 1, 2000 and 2001 All Students School LRSD Average 1999-2000 School 53.6 LRSD Average 2000-01 64.0 Woodruff Williams Wilson Western Hills McDermott E 1 1 Rockefeller Carver Meadowcliff Forest Park Booker Jefferson Otter Creek Bale Gibbs Fair Park Fulbright Romine Dodd Franklin King Mabelvale Pulaski Heights Terry Geyer Springs Rightsell_____ Washington Brady Baseline Cloverdale Chicot Mitchell Watson Garland Wakefield Badgett 76.3 76.1 70.0 69.8 69.3 69.1 67.7 66.7 65.9 62.5 61.0 59.6 58.3 57.6 56.6 50.8 50.0 47.1 46.8 35.7 35.5 34.9 29.6 28.4 26.8 25.0 24.7 23.5 22.0 05.9 Williams Carver McDermott Booker Forest Park Romine Jefferson Dodd Fair Park Gibbs Baseline Otter Creek Watson Wakefield Fulbright Kins_________ Meadowcliff Bale Rockefeller Pulaski Heights Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Franklin Western Hills Wilson Brady Chicot Stephens Rightsell_____ Washington Geyer Springs Cloverdale Badgett______ Mitchell RTwl 76.5 73.9 73.5 72.7 71.4 70.8 69.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 65.2 61.7 61.5 60.5 59.8 58.9 55.6 53.8 53.5 51.0 51.0 41.7 41.1 38.6 33.9 26.5 25.0 7Table 6 Percent Readiness, Grade 2, 2000 and 2001 All Students School LRSD Average Rightsell Williams Forest Park Western Hills Otter Creek Carver Franklin Terry King Gibbs Booker_______ Fulbright_____ Woodruff Geyer Springs Bale_________ Rockefeller Jefferson Brady________ Romine McDermott Washington Fair Park Wilson Cloverdale Meadowcliff Watson Dodd Mitchell Baseline Pulaski Heights Mabelvale Wakefield Chicot Garland Badgett 1999-2000 67.5 94.7 89.7 89.6 89.5 87.2 81.8 81.2 81.2 80.8 80.5 79.8 79.3 78.3 72.5 72.1 71.4 71.1 70.8 68.8 67.1 63.3 62.9 60.4 57.9 57.9 54.4 51.7 48.6 47.1 45.2 43.4 40.0 38.6 31.3 11.8 School LRSD Average Carver Williams Western Hills Otter Creek McDermott Fulbright Woodruff Forest Park King Jefferson Rockefeller Franklin Gibbs Dodd Romine Washington Booker Bale Brady Meadowcliff Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Fair Park Terry Geyer Springs Mabelvale Wilson Stephens Baseline Wakefield Chicot Watson Mitchell Cloverdale Badgett 2000-01 75.4 93.1 92.6 91.7 90.5 89.6 88.7 86.5 85.7 85.6 85.0 84.2 83.6 82.9 82.8 81.6 81.4 81.4 81.4 79.6 75.0 74.5 70.5 67.7 67.1 66.0 63.0 61.4 61.4 60.5 54.4 52.1 51.2 50.0 45.1 42.9 8Achievement Gap The achievement gap between African American and other students is always an issue of concern in the Little Rock School District. A major emphasis in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is the significant narrowing and eventual elimination of that gap. Tables 7, 8, and 9 provide DRA data, by school, reflecting the achievement of African American and other students for comparison purposes and a calculation of the gaps. The gap is being addressed at this level not only through the literacy and mathematics program initiatives in the primary grades, but also by the addition of as many pre-kindergarten sections as has been possible. As of spring 2001 there were 953 four-year-olds enrolled in pre-kindergarten classes and another 358 in HIPPY and infant/toddler programs for a total of 1312. 9School Table 7 Percent of Black and Non-Black Students at Readiness\" Level, Kindergarten, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 LRSD Average Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Black 99-00 69.3 16.1 56.8 48.6 85.4 84.6 74.4 59.2 54.2 88.2 67.7 30.4 65.6 89.5 90.0 90.5 80.0 59.6 61.5 94.7 82.6 89.7 91.2 72.7 91.7 67.4 78.9 40.4 92.7 53.3 81.8 57.1 76.2 92.3 71.4 68.6 Black 00-01 77.0 52.6 61.3 92.5 92.3 92.3 83.8 70.6 82.2 76.5 72.7 53.8 59.3 81.3 87.5 66.7 75.5 78.1 86.4 77.8 92.3 87.1 79.3 80.0 73.7 85.4 65.5 87.5 77.1 64.4 75.0 73.2 73.1 86.7 79.4 48.6 Non-Black 99-00 84.7 100.0 80.0 100.0 79.4 72.7 91.7 60.0 83.3 85.0 77.8 91.3 60.0 97.2 80.0 87.5 97.2 70.0 75.0 97.3 62.5 100.0 94.6 94.4 100.0 90.9 73.3 0.0 96.2 33.3 83.3 0.0 77.8 88.5 33.3 75.0 Non-Black 00-01 88.8 0.0 50.0 100.0 85.7 100.0 97.2 71.4 83.3 88.2 85.7 100.0 100.0 98.0 100.0 96.9 86.5 66.7 100.0 72.7 0.0 95.5 91.7 100.0 80.0 87.5 100.0 100.0 94.7 44.4 95.7 33.3 72.7 92.9 80.0 25.0 Denotes schools where Blacks perform higher than Non-Blacks. Gap 99-00 15.4 83.9 23.2 51.4 6.0* 11.9* 17.3 0.8 29.1 3.2* 10.1 60.9 5.6* 7.7 10.0* 3.0* 17.2 10.4 13.5 2.6 20.1* 10.3 3.4 21.7 8.3 23.5 5.6* 40.4* 3.5 20.0* 1.5 57.1* 1.6 3.8* 38.1* 6.4 Gap 00-01 11.8 52.6* 11.3* 7.5 6.6* 7.7 13.4 0.8 1.1 11.7 13.0 46.2 40.7 16.7 12.5 30.2 11.0 11.4* 13.6 5.1* 92.3* 8.4 12.4 20.0 6.3 2.1 34.5 12.5 17.6 20.0* 20.7 39.9* 0.4* 6.2 0.6 23.6* 10School Table 8 Percent of Black and Non-Black Students at \"Readiness\" Level, Grade 1, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 LRSD Average Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff * Block 99-00 48.3 7.4 81.5 30.2 61.4 34.2 64.7 28.0 28.3 60.0 57.7 53.3 57.1 60.9 47.1 50.0 55.0 52.5 51.1 85.7 70.0 28.1 46.7 31.8 38.5 62.9 64.7 24.1 31.0 24.5 24.4 27.3 78.1 81.3 87.5 84.4 Block 00-01 57.4 22.6 65.2 68.3 88.5 48.4 83.3 59.3 30.9 72.2 64.7 65.0 59.4 58.3 51.7 54.5 56.8 65.5 87.5 65.5 25.7 87.8 45.5 42.9 62.5 80.0 53.2 36.6 36.1 59.5 36.8 27.7 46.4 97.1 55.1 65.7 Non-Block 99-00 71.2 0.0 58.8 20.0 84.6 52.9 90.3 26.9 33.3 62.5 100.0 82.9 100.0 68.8 46.2 85.0 84.4 64.4 66.7 76.9 77.8 0.0 88.2 68.0 0.0 95.8 50.0 25.0 73.5 14.3 55.2 0.0 90.9 89.7 75.0 83.3 Non-Black 00-01 77.3 100.0 69.2 85.7 85.7 66.7 100.0 36.0 57.1 73.3 100.0 92.0 66.7 74.4 92.6 91.7 76.1 50.0 87.9 69.2 0.0 89.3 75.0 90.0 71.4 73.3 33.3 66.7 75.9 38.5 50.0 0.0 87.5 97.0 33.3 25.0 Denotes schools where Blacks perform higher than Non-Blacks. Gap 99-00 22.9 7.4* 22.7* 10.2* 23.2 18.7 25.6 1.1* 5.0 2.5 42.3 29.6 42.9 7.9 0.9* 35.0 29.4 11.9 15.6 8.8* 7.8 28.1* 41.5 36.2 38.5* 32.9 11.7* 0.9 42.5 10.2* 30.8 27.3* 12.8 8.4 12.5* 1.1* Gop 00-01 19.9 77.4 4.0 17.4 2.8* 18.3 16.7 23.3* 26.2 1.1 35.3 27.0 7.3 16.1 40.9 37.2 19.3 15.5* 0.4 3.7 25.7* 1.5 29.5 47.1 8.9 6.7* 19.9* 30.1 39.8 21.0* 13.2 27.7* 41.1 0.1* 21.8* 40.7* 11School Table 9 Percent of Black and Non-Black Students at \"Readiness\" Level, Srade 2, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 LRSD Average Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Seyer Springs Sibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Black 99-00 63.8 9.7 71.4 46.2 81.0 72.5 78.3 42.9 62.7 52.9 54.5 83.3 83.1 75.0 69.7 71.4 58.6 78.6 32.4 62.8 55.2 50.0 87.5 30.0 97.3 65.8 65.6 39.3 83.3 40.5 61.7 53.2 92.6 87.1 58.1 82.9 Black 00-01 69.8 44.4 84.4 60.5 70.9 76.3 91.1 55.3 46.7 73.7 62.5 62.5 83.3 83.3 63.9 75.0 78.3 78.4 60.0 89.5 80.0 42.9 91.7 65.0 69.8 72.7 83.3 58.5 59.4 46.9 74.3 59.2 91.4 91.4 60.0 84.8 Non-Black 99-00 81.6 50.0 83.3 57.1 79.5 100.0 94.7 31.6 25.0 71.4 90.0 96.3 0.0 93.0 85.7 90.0 78.7 93.9 68.8 86.4 57.1 66.7 90.0 65.0 0.0 93.8 80.0 80.0 77.5 50.0 73.1 80.0 100.0 94.3 80.0 77.8 Non-Black 00-01 86.8 0.0 72.7 60.0 95.2 90.9 95.2 46.2 20.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 93.1 72.7 94.1 89.2 95.6 83.3 89.7 50.0 0.0 89.7 81.5 0.0 100.0 75.0 100.0 72.2 100.0 88.6 0.0 92.3 93.9 75.0 100.0 Denotes schools where Blacks perform higher than Non-Blacks. Sap 99-00 17.8 40.3 11.9 10.9 1.5* 27.5 16.4 11.3* 37.7 18.5 35.5 13.0 83.1* 18.0 16.0 18.6 20.1 15.3 36.4 23.6 1.9 16.7 2.5 35.0 97.3* 28.0 25.6 40.7 5.8* 9.5 11.4 26.8 7.4 7.2 21.9 5.1* Sap 00-01 17.0 44.4* 11.7* 0.5* 24.3 14.6 4.1 9.1* 26.7* 26.3 37.5 34.5 16.7 9.8 8.8 19.1 10.9 17.2 23.3 0.2 30.0* 42.9* 2.0* 16.5 69.8* 27.3 8.3* 41.5 12.8 53.1 14.3 59.2* 0.9 2.5 15.0 15.2 12 fJOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS 7\u0026lt; 7^ j John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 371-0100 August 15, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Ms. Ann S. Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED AUG 1 7 ZOOI Dear Ms. Marshall: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Please find enclosed Stanford Nine results for reading and language. This is information that we have not been previously provided by the Little Rock School District. It is not within any of the volumes of documents submitted by the school district to either the court or the parties. Several witnesses indicated that these data have been available and are being used by the District at the same time the new superintendent. Dr. James and Dr. Bonnie are proposing to discontinue much of the testing. The Board has approved eliminating much of the testing. The enclosed testing information reveal the reasons for abandonment of tests by the District. While the school district may not have eliminated the Stanford 9, it appears headed in that direction. Mr. Heller is complaining that we have sought too much information from the District and are obstructing school opening. Please see my letter to him today. As the monitor approved by the court. I am writing to request that you obtain all of the test data on all of the subjects test for each school. I am also requesting that you provide a report to the parties assessing the LRSDs progress with respect to remediation of achievement disparities between African American and non African American children during the past four years. Thank you for your immediate attention to this request. incerely, John W. Walker JWW\njs Enclosure 4. 0 fifed /i'6rary - f.rcj '^etl I 9 O n 9 ACHiEl^EMBHT TEST SEJUES, NINTH EDITION n G^BLADE: 07 Item Analysis Summary FOR LITTLE ROCK ? o TEST TYPE: MULTIPLE CHOICfi TEST DATE: 09/00 District Code: 036001 Page 14 T H L D SUBTEST CLUSTER OBJECTIVE Rems Item Number Aslan/ Padfie Is. t ! J t u c J I 3 0 H J T 0 PROCESS CLUSTER SUMMARY FOR Thinking Skills 42 Iteew Mean p^value Above Averege Avere^ Belew Aver^^a 71 43 52 5 49 8 39 55 SUBTEST SUMMARY FOR Reading Comprehension Ta-tal N-Count: ASIANZPACIFIC IS.= NATIVE AHERXCAN: DISTRICT* 21 BLACK= 1046 1 WHITES 401 1511 54 Items Hean p'velua HISPANICS OTHERS 21 15 74 52 STANFORD tEVEL/FORM: Irtetwediale i/T 1995 NORMS: Fall National response: analysis PERCENT CORRECT Hispanic 54 lo 43 46 56 Scores based on oomiative data copyrieht O 1996 by Harooust Brace A CcTi^any. AB rescrveiL Natfv* Anwvtcan 40 0 0 5 37 While 73 44 44 12 75 Otker 69 20 47 33 63 District 56 18 41 41 59 NKnal 63 66 Copy 01 PtocmjNo. HII2-J92IU-15-OJM3-1Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 August 20, 2001 Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear John: Thank you for your letter of August 15, 2001, to which you attached certain Little Rock School District standardized test results. The data you included were for the SAT-9 taken by 7'* graders in September 2000 and for the ACTAAP benchmark exams for 8\" graders, administered in April 2000. We are in the process of gathering various test data from the districts. However, due to the ongoing hearings on the LRSDs bid for unitary status and Judge Wrights associated directives, at this time I dont anticipate that ODM will issue a report on LRSD achievement indicators. ! very much appreciate your keeping us informed. Sincerely yours, Ann S. MarshallT Date: August 21, 2001 To: From: Re: Melissa Inventory of LRSD Test Data Attached is an accumulation, from various sources, of LRSD test data. 1 need you to list out exactly what were got here by test, subject area, date administered, and grade level. Next, indicate any holes in the information, that is, what tests, dates, or grade levels are missing. It may be helpful to refer to Genes chart (distributed at staff meeting several weeks ago) of the various tests each district gives and the time of their administration. After youve finished the LRSD, do the same for the PCSSD and NLRSD. I dont think we have much recent test data on hand from either of the other districts. Once youve determined what we don t have, write a draft of a letter to each district that will enable us to update our files. The attached copies are mine, so please return them when youre through. See how fast you can get this done. Thanks much.Name of Report Standardized Testing Annual Rpt Standardized Testing Annual Rpt AMPT Results 5 year Comparison MAT-6 National Percentile Scores Comparative Data AMPT Results 5-Year Comparison Comparison of Passing Rates on the MPT AMPT Test Results SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Cun e Equivalent Scores SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Cune Equivalent Scores AMPT Third Administration SAT Percentile Rank/Normal Curve Equivalent Scores Comparative Data SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Curve Equivalent Scores SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Curve Equivalent Scores AMPT SAT 8 Annual Report Analyses SAT 8 Percentile Rank and Normal Curve Equivalent SAT Percentile Rank/Normal Curve Equivalent Scores/Comparative Data SAT 8 Percentile Rank and Normal Curve Equivalent LRSD Testing Reports on File at ODM March 5,1996 Year(s) 1986-87 1987-88 1987-91 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 1988-92 1989-92 1989-93 1992 1992 1992 1992-93 1993 1993 1993-94 1994-95 Fall, 1995 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 1995 Summarized By school Bv school District summary District summan' By school District summary District summary \u0026amp; by school By school District summary^ By school By school By school District summary By school \u0026amp; district summary By school \u0026amp; district summan By school \u0026amp; district summary By school \u0026amp; district summary By school \u0026amp; district summary Grades 1-6 1-6 3,6,8 1-11 3,6,8 3,6,8 3, 6,8 1-11 1-11 8 1-11 1-11 1-11 6,8 1-11 1-11 1-11 1-11 Race BAV B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W Gender F/M F/M F/M F/M F/M Areas Reported Subject areas Subject areas # pass. # fail, by subject area Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas # pass\n# fail Basic Battery/ Complete Battery Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Basic Battery, Complete BatteryTest Subject Date Administered The following are the recent LRSD test results that are in our files. DRA Literacy Spring 2000, Spring 2001 SAT 9 Reading 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Math 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Language arts 1996-97-2000-01 SATO Science 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Social studies 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Basic battery 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Complete battery 1996-97-2000-01 ACTAAP Math 1998-99-1999000 ACTAAP Literacy 1998-99-1999000 ACTAAP Math 1998-99-1999000 ACTAAP Literacy 1998-99-1999000 Grade Levels K 1st 2n 5\\ 7\\ IO' 5th, 1 Qth 5'\\ 7\\ IO* 5*, 7*, 10* 5*, 7*, 10* 5*, 7*, 10* 5*, 7*, 10* 4th 4* 8* 8* The following, which are duplicates of those in our files, were sent by John Walker. SAT-9 Reading September 2000 7* SAT-9 Language arts September 2000 7* ACTAAP Literacy April 2000 8*IMw Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge August 23, 2001 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Melissa\nI am attaching, as per your request, copies of the grade 4 Benchmark scores for 1998- 99 and 1999-2000. We do not have as yet the 2000-01 reports. I am also attaching a copy of the grade 8 scores for the pilot year in 1999-2000. Again, we do not have the 2000-01 results as yet. As I told you on the telephone, we have not had time as yet to put all the ALT scores on tables. I have the all-student reports done, but I still lack the disaggregations. That task is next on my list. As soon as I get them done, I will provide the full set to you. I sent you earlier our preliminary report on the Developmental Reading Assessment. I now have tables constructed of all the Observation Survey data, each of the five subtests, including disaggregations, plus the mean scores for each sub-test on the DRA, again disaggregated, so I am sending those pages along as well. Wonderful stuff! Let me know if you have questions. Yours truly, Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Attachment cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W. Markham  Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 T  5AT - /^C'TA A? TO A 6At^ 1|. Srt /icrnpre (JiCf\u0026gt;i\u0026lt;/ii\u0026lt;naiiK^ i\u0026lt; 1/ I ( I J(A'^ nii.\\ h i:\u0026gt;i/ia- Ci^'^ ^2A^-~___ xuyra\u0026gt;\u0026lt;g__ ^yDcl ^Ido______ loo______ __'~l )(oo 7^0 _bfdlin____^Qii ) _____200' 0 I___ h 5 n f! u II H H U :i. i IJ ~7 2. 1 1^ /a 2..,. 1 s.^1 /o )  ^.7lo GraudLf- It II 4^Individual Approach to a World of'Knowledge ?SII1 August 23, 2001 Ms, Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Melissa: I am attaching, as per your request, copies of the grade 4 Benchmark scores for 1998- 99 and 1999-2000. We do not have as yet the 2000-01 reports. I am also attaching a copy of the grade 8 scores for the pilot year in 1999-2000. Again, we do not have the 2000-01 results as yet. As I told you on the telephone, we have not had time as yet to put all the ALT scores on tables. I have the all-student reports done, but I still lack the disaggregations. That task is next on my list. As soon as I get them done, I will provide the full set to you. I sent you earlier our preliminary report on the Developmental Reading Assessment. I now have tables constructed of all the Observation Survey data, each of the five subtests, including disaggregations, plus the mean scores for each sub-test on the DRA, again disaggregated, so I am sending those pages along as well. Wonderful stuff!  Let me know if you have questions. Yours truly, 4 Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Attachment cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 y / /-I AUG 2 V ZOGi Table 1 Letter IdentificationKindergarten-Black Students Maximum Score = 54 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATiOMrlO^lTDF School Fall 1999 Spring Growth 2000 Fail 2000 Spring Growth 2001 Codes LRSD Badgett_______ Bale Baseline_______ Booker________ Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd_________ Fair Park_____ Forest Park Franklin______ Fulbright_____ Geyer Springs Gibbs_________ Jefferson______ King__________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine_______ Stephens (Grid) Terry_________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 27.59 20.56 26.56 16.78 37.31 29.17 26.37 21.43 20.88 31.19 29.03 31.22 I 21.06 38.81 29.45 40.25 25.75 29.73 23.03 28.72 28.45 39.92 29.82 26.38 39.44 25.44 37.47 29.81 34.09 I 25.81 23.51 21.96 20.25 38.32 22.90 30.57 48,48 45,33 50.67 38.28 51.92 50.33 50.84 48.50 48.83 51.25 47.21 50.17 50.03 53.44 49.33 54.00 46.80 49.93 49.50 51.94 49.23 45.48 51.58 48.38 50.69 48.09 50.90 48.57 51.54 45.81 41.87 45.25 43.80 51.24 49.12 46.83 Only students with a fall and spnng score arc included in this report. 20.89 24.77 24.11 21.50 14.61 21.16 24.47 27.07 27.95 20.06 18.18 18.95 28.97 14.63 19.88 13.75 21.05 20.20 26.47 23.22 20.78 5.56 21.76 22.00 11.25 22.65 13.43 18.76 17.45 20.00 18.36 23.29 23.55 12.92 26.22 16.26 27.43 12.38 30.85 29.03 32.37 28.08 28.67 21.26 21.35 26.13 34.09 25.82 23.10 30.38 29.06 37.15 21.68 32.43 29.68 28.27 24.23 26.17 31.58 24.15 29.70 25.74 30.03 20.04 30.70 24.84 32.20 23.25 34.52 38.19 21.07 25.64 49.38 46.62 49.59 46.89 51.24 49.48 52.08 45.85 48.35 51.31 53.82 49.73 49.48 50.92 50.90 53.76 48.32 48.80 46.96 51.60 45.48 49.41 50.77 50.37 50.45 49.89 51.50 48.06 50.63 47.13 47.88 49.00 45.57 52.11 50.07 49.39 21.95 34.24 18.74 17.86 18.87 21.40 23.41 24,59 27.00 25.18 19.73 23.91 26.38 20.54 21.84 16.61 26.64 16.37 17.28 23.33 21.25 23.24 19.19 26.22 20.75 24.15 21.47 28.02 19.93 22.29 15.68 25.75 11.05 13.92 29.00 23.75 FR SP SP FR SFA, SP RR M YC, SFA, SP M YC,FRRR,SP FR SFA, SP.CSR RR, CSR SP FR, SFA, SP I, FR, RR, SP FR, RR. SP RR, .M RR SP FR EYE, SP TA FR. SFA, SP I, FR, SP RR, TA I, FR.SP I, SP YC, SFA, SP I, FR, EYRSP YC, TA FR, SP NC, DI, ,M, SP FR CSR SP SP RR M FR RRSP FRSFA.EYE,SP Codes: DI=Direct Instrucuon\nEYE=Extended Year Education\nFR=75% or higher eligible for free/reduced lunch\nl=lncennve School\nM=Magnet School\nNC=Newconier Center\nRR=Reading Recovery\nSFA=Success for All\nTA=Title I Targeted Assistance\nSP=Title 1 Schoolwide Project 98/ / - ZX5(9 ffirrt h It, Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge August 28, 2001 V*  4 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann\n1 promised to send to you our ALT data as soon as I could get the disaggregated scores onto tables. I completed the grades 2-8 reading and language usage reports this past week-end, so they are attached. As soon as other reports are ready, I will also forward them. \\Ne are told that the Benchmark results will arrive this week. If they do, well work to get those to you as quickly as possible. Yours truly, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 J Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge September 10, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: RECF''^D SEP I i' ?!l!)l urHbi\nV- 1 0WGATi02^GJjjI0RiMB All of our test scores are finally in, and we have compiled our reports, attaching for your files the following\nI am 1. ALT Reading and Language Usage 2. ALT Mathematics and Science 3. Grade 4 Literacy and Mathematics - Benchmarks 4. Grade 8 Literacy and Mathematics - Benchmarks 5. ACT, 1997-98 through 2000-01 6. Advanced Placement Please let me know if you have questions. Sincerely, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg Attachments cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 CC JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydl^wbell.net Via Facsimile - 371-0100 November 12, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED NOV 14 2001 Re: LRSD Six Year SAT 9 Summary lafflCEOl- OeSTIONMONITORil Dear Ms. Marshall: Would you please provide the NCE scores for grades 5, 7 and 10 by year and race for the most recent LRSD Stanford 9 results. In other words, as measured by the NCE scores on the SAT 9, has the disparity decreased in academic achievement between the black students and white students in the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your attention to this request. incerely, John W. JWW:js Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 11, 2002 Dr. Boimie Lesley Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Bonnie: Thanks very much for forwarding a copy of your August presentation to the Board on recent algebra, geometry, and literacy test scores. The results indicate very encouraging improvements, upon which we congratulate you, your professional colleagues, and, of course, the students. some We appreciate your keeping us informed and look forward to hearing good news during the school year. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Marshall k st\u0026lt;ru\u0026gt; 144 vS jtu lift (x\u0026gt; July 22, 2005 RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: Thank you for your request for ACTAAP \u0026amp; ITBS disaggregated test results by school, race and gender from last school year. We have received such data related to the ITBS, however, ACTAAP data received by LRSD consists only of raw scores for individual students and is not yet normalized by the Department of Education. Our PRE Department will prepare a set of ITBS data for you in the format you requested and furnish it to you within two weeks. Please let us know whether this satisfies your request. Siricerely yours, L't/p :aren DeJamette, Ph. T H^ai fl . V // Director, PRE Department xc\nMr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Thursday, May 9,1991 Arkansas Gazette Bghth grade MFT test results Caposite pass rate School: Dfetncts RodR\nN^\u0026lt;\nLJ^G|RiLiisskf: ? No. tested , 1792 fe^paSs^ll^ggig Q/ /o passed 78 536 ssas\n85.5 County 1483'1 B^253\n\u0026lt; 84.5 : I r. t J J- r. J ::Pa^s-rafie| bysubji^ Reading Language.... Sqenc8hi:W-:-: 87% 82 Soc. Studies '\"^ S- i \u0026lt; 89% SOT 86... 75 89%IGA  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT  THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1991 Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (Sth grade) STUDENTS FAILING School Cloverdale * iDuhbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann ^ulaski Heights Southwest * Elizabeth Mitchell DISTRICT Students passing ~7i 70 83 76 81 88 80 69 29 78 Black Male Female White Male Female 38 50 38 43 40 48 44 40 44 44 39 57 44 51 43 50 48 20 47 3 7 3 2 5 14 ' 2 2 40 18 13 4 3 3 0 3 NA 5 NA 17 Total students tailing 29 soil 17 24 19 12 20 3t 71 Note: Figures are percentages, with fractions rounded off to the nearest whole number, and therefore may not total 100 percent. WA = not available * = other races not included^Thursday, May 23, 1991...Arkansas Democrat _______________ LRSD pass rates on Minimum Performance Test I { } I I s.\nfrhe chart shows the percentage of black, white and tot^ studeriU.passlhg the MPT^ SCHOOL/GRADE READING MATH LANGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES BADGETT 3 6 BALES 6 BASELINE 3 6 BOOKER 3 6 BRADY 3 6 CARVER 3 6 CHICOT 3 6 CLOVERDALE 3 6 DODD 3 6 FAJR PARK 3 6 FOREST PARK 3 8 FRANKLIN 3 6 FULBRiGKrS 6 QARLAN0 3 6 QEYER SPRINGS 3 6 GIBBS 3 6 ISH3 6 JEFFERSON 3 8 MABELVALE 3 8 MCDEFBAOnS 8 HEADOWCUFF 3 6 MICHELL 3 8 OUERCREEKS 6 PULASKI HEIGHTS 3 8 OHrSELL3 8 ROCKEFELLER 3 6 ROMINES 6 STEPHENS 3 6 TERRY 3 6 WAKEFIELD 3 8 WASHMQTON 3 8 WATSONS 6 WESTERN HILLS 3 6 W1LUAMS 3 8 WILSON 3 8 WOODRUFF 3 6 DUNBAR FOREST HBGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN PULASKI HEtOHTS SOUTHWEST ALL 73 88 67 86 85 88 93 99 P 98 99 96 .65 P 94 92 74 79 91 85 93 98 92 94 P 96 69 91 95 100 90 98 75 P 90 98 86 88 94 99 84 98 93 94 92 100 88 P 96 93 M 95 84 91 59 94 93 IM 87 96 90 93 P 95 93 92 94 1W P 87 P 98 B 69 86 65 84 83 85 90 98 77 98 98 92 54 88 97 89 78 78 91 81 87 97 90 95 72 93 67 90 93 100 83 100 75 83 89 97 74 85 91 96 78 96 92 94 83 too 80 87 96 93 85 95 87 90 60 92 89 too 82 94 80 84 77 92 94 89 97 100 84 90 80 97 w 88 100 71 100 100 92 97 100 94 100 100 100 94 92 85 too 71 -79 91 100 too 100 100 86 97 100 too 100 100 100 100 95 90 100 95 92 100 too 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 100 50 100 97 100 95 100 100 100 94 100 93 100 97 100 92 79 100 100 ALL 92 58 75 81 P 93 91 97 80 92 97 86 56 72 96 92 S3 80 88 88 99 100 87 83 83 92 58 76 100 too 88 90 75 83 90 98 77 76 89 96 81 100 100 88 96 too 90 89 92 93 97 95 94 84 65 94 93 97 88 85 98 100 77 95 98 too 94 97 72 91 76 98 B 90 62 73 78 78 96 88 96 74 91 96 75 49 68 97 91 80 78 88 85 97 100 87 81 72 88 58 n 100 100 78 95 75 83 83 97 70 74 86 96 75 100 100 88 92 100 84 90 92 93 96 95 97 83 60 92 89 98 83 81 96 100 72 94 97 too 91 97 68 94 67 97 W 100 40 86 100 100 85 97 100 94 100 98 100 75 85 92 100 88 84 91 100 100 100 75 86 100 97 100 67 100 100 100 85 100 100 p 81 95 95 91 100 100 100 100 100 88 100 100 83 too too 100 97 96 94 94 100 100 89 96 100 100 97 96 85 88 too too ALL 58 67 54 87 78 76 56 59 59 74 92 68 81 50 80 90 83 82 58 87 85 82 81 76 80 73 65 69 85 84 88 95 86 92 S3 80 B 80 63 52 78 74 63 51 49 49 P 90 65 68 52 86 90 83 72 61 82 79 82 63 77 80 71 65 75 76 81 77 94 81 n P 73 W 57 100 54 100 100 90 69 85 79 100 95 71 97 33 67 90 92 81 90 94 96 75 100 50 190 89 97 96 100 93 71 100 ALL 38 58 44 82 90 n 43 71 61 59 75 49 82 59 85 85 91 58 76 68 71 83 74 80 68 56 69 79 66 93 78 68 p 83 93 B it S3 44 71 88 61 29 60 51 48 69 43 73 55 93 81 P n 39 67 50 71 63 67 80 67 54 75 71 62 84 73 S3 75 94 90 W ao 87 46 97 100 95 85 100 79 100 82 71 94 100 67 90 100 100 85 92 94 96 100 100 75 92 72 100 68 100 89 79 100 ALL 38 58 54 92 73 78 44 P 55 68 80 55 86 53 95 83 75 80 58 82 78 76 85 74 80 68 75 68 85 78 81 74 78 88 65 75 B 38 58 59 P 70 61 34 48 46 59 72 49 76 48 100 81 75 P 50 74 71 76 63 70 80 17 73 n 76 72 65 67 75 81 65 70 W 40 48 100 100 91 77 92 74 100 90 71 100 100 83 85 10c 73 98 88 100 88 100 100 too 83 95 88 86 96 64 86 83 86 84 85 95 89 89 81 81 80 78 93 00 88 88 98 97 97 98 99 98 75 89 88 85 87 87 n 79 69 84 85 78 81 75 74 84 88 98 98 97 95 99 U 77 77 81 80 84 93 84 77 74 73 74 76 78 89 72 72 87 86 95 97 97 97 97 95 61 50 71 58 58 71 71 56 52 40 60 49 40 55 48 50 O 71 94 65 88 92 96 80 53 56 79 56 65 80 66 47 48 52 71 51 53 71 47 42  65 63 95 73 P P ' P i 61Thursday, August 8, 1991... Democrat LRSD Metropolitan Achievement Test comparison I Sr.high Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview I i Jr. high loverOale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest - 1990 7 B W 40 62 28 47 42 81 41 79 34 73 51 85 42 88 41 64 1990 10 B W 42 84 38 71 45 78 38 63 56 81 1991 7 B W 32 53 46 80 36 70 33 74 34 61 53 83 34 84 34 48 1991 10 B W 42 86 37 63 40 74 40 65 57 84 1990 8 B W 35 55 24 44 43 78 38 76 41 65 50 85 38 80 33 73 1990 11 B W 38 81 32 64 38 73 28 58 41 68 1991 8 B W 34 56 30 61 40 77 37 78 36 70 49 84 33 84 35 61 1991 11 B W 40 85 36 70 42 76 37 59 54 79 1990 9 B W 52 73 42 68 50 85 54 83 52 78 63 91 52 89 53 73 Chart shows percentile ranking, by grade and race, of the test's complete battery, comparing 1990 scores to 1991 scores. A ranking in the 50th percentile is considered average. 1991 9 B W 45 64 44 77 49 83 46 84 45 72 61 90 50 85 42 67 I ! Elementary 1990 1 B W 1991 1 B W Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver \u0026lt; . Chicot Cloverdale Dodd , Fair Pai^' Forest Park 29 40 55 79 45 66 27 83 45 54 30 50 41 74 38 74 23 63 46 72 95 73 41 59 29\n48: 66 40 27 50 21 78 97 42 1990 2 B W 30 46 30 53 60 63 60 80 42 84 63 93 26 48 63 50 60 52 32 79 40 \u0026lt;71 64 89 49 93 33 45 53 88 57 94 1991 2 B W 26 51 33 55 41 57 41 78 28 55 61 92 43 61 70 81 26 31 33 70 61 93 1990 3 B W 20 39 40 63 40 63 42 75 30 69 46 87 35 62 49 76 38 71 34 66 43 91 Frankiih. Fulbright _ 27 44 37-82 23 72 49 86 Garland 37 - 31 65 Geyer Springs 51 63 54 74 Gibbs :\u0026lt;\u0026lt;:4\n:\u0026gt; Ish Jeffersonii Mabelvale ,\u0026lt;\n: 40 84 39 88 43 25 28 60 . 38 78 25 \u0026lt;77 23 49 32 55 46 52 27 51 32 54 49 83 34 80 34 77 27 83 23 46 26 52 64 43 70 . 28 51 48 90 58 93 32 35 57 47 61 48 McDermott-  49 92 43 80 Meadowcliff MitcheiL- \u0026gt;  Otter Creek 31 67 32 60 \u0026lt; 48 91 53 71 57 84 37 80 44 76 42 74 46 88 50 59 34 63 33 53 62 89 61 87 44 78 34 73 44 60 32 78 42 23 44 75 47 28 43 78 45 80 Pulaski-'Heights 26 72 21 64 Rightsell Rockefeller Romine ,, Stephens\"  Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 51 73 47 - \u0026lt;39 43 33 70 ,38 48 55 , 44 25 61 33 - 40 85 64 - 34 37 40 81 48 79 46 52 39 68 20 63 45 94 40 54 50 58 1991 3 B W 29 56 26 37 37 47 39 73 34 61 55 90 23 49 54 53 34 36 38 83 46 89 38 77 40 81 25 57 37 66 49 86 37  40 80 31 ^7 44 75 36 76 45 56 51 81 1990 4 B W 35 35 27 45 53 59 1991 4 B 31 36 49 50 80 .44 44 70 72 93 38 70 39 63 62 54 58 80 57 1990 5 B 21 29 44 84 49 69 1991 5 B W 1990 6 B W 35 21 37 46 29 5 4 45 69 49 49 49 75 47 83 51 84 61 88 49 84 42 71 57 83 90 55 91 65 91 68 92 46 63 32 64 37 73 45 72 Q7 79 .17 85 39 63 49 55 41 26 44 72 29 75 53 87 36 62 44 68 40 37 53 49 47 90 32 47 29 , 45 49 85 51 87 \\53 99 : 59 81 25 - 51 76 52 83 50 74 49 82 38 - 40 67 40 55 59 38 50 42 60 55 74 41 52 80 32 58 46 84 95 52 88 36 85 53 :43 81 41 76 79 44 82 43 80 40 37 v' -\u0026lt;45 1991 6 B W 33 37 37 83 53 57 49 87 ' 51 82 50 91 39 70 39 63 38 64 66 82 57 95 49 64: 52 73 48 38 37 75 41 65 61 92 59 93 60 58 47 10 36 61 38 23 61 80 59 71 63 91 58 92 60 93 66 85 37 63 50 75 55 54 52 88 41 86 41 92 89 58 82 47 92\u0026lt; 46 64 35 57 34 34 35 55 51 62 45 53 51 84 62 84 49 49 38 68 41 80 55 83 53 61 37 82 43 27 72 - 44 83 58 83 45 76. 36 53 28 73 32 - 31 41 40 40 47 82 19 66 43 42 45 47 53 41 48 45 49 56 47 67 47 75 47 .40 53 \u0026lt;44 52 53 - \u0026lt; 53 43 88 58 82 50 78 41 36 59 31 :79 33 69 48 40 39 90 58 J 28 38 33 - 60 35 58 33 58 27^ 42 35 27 82 58 28 75 28 33 43 46 40 70 54 62 58 67 35 44 44 46 66 64 89 50 87 44 44 48 55 53 23 61 54 54 42 95 36 - 43 49 54 58 27 44 78 53 79 53 53 43 70 53 79 65 83 54 40 64 32 70 48 48 45 ' 61 56 73 55 65 79 39 84 40 85 30 30 41 74 51 38 88 33 51 30 46 32 74 39 55 45 48 25 66 48 85 50 83 84 94 87 :95 82 70 77 82 33 25 20 33 46 78 58 85 59 82 43 97 91 82 93 70 91 63 50 65 61 56 50 53 27 35 56 67 19 60 38 27 75 85 47 69 59 77 60 61 55 55 51 72 48 68 53 72 54 75 42 75 52 52 46 74 51 83 55 80 83 89 46 59 36 48 75 92 72 72 75 87 75 92 72 90 47 44 50 50 43 60 53 74 59 62 28 30 42 42 43 66 51 59 48 75Au.qust 12, 1991 Monday Arkansas Ppmncrat MAT 6 anaylsis for elementary schools (Total possible score is 600. School average of 50% or higher is 300 or more total points) _ . ' Total points I B ^4 Total points  Ranking 1 '??:.'2 3 Name Williams Magnet Car/er Magnet- Forest Park area Total points' i 4 Gibbs Magrwt 5 Otter Creek area 7 . 0 9 : 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 6 Terry area 502   455 402\n393:::'.- ' Name Williams Jefferson area McDermott area Fulbright area Booker Magnet Western Hills area Cloverdale area Washington Magnet Wilson area M J- Mitchell incentive Geyer Springs aroa Meadowcliff area Remine area- V Watson area Fair Park area \u0026lt; Rightseil incentive Rockefeller incentive Wakefield area , Brady areaii' Pul. Heights area Stephens incentive Baseline area Ish incentive Woodruff area Mabelvale area Chicot area [jodd area Franklin area Badgett area\nBale area Garland incentive 392  , 372 366 363 349 338 335 320 308 308 306 291 283 - 283 ( 283 282 281 281 279 269 . 268: 267 264 262 260 255 226 .218 :213 Carver \u0026lt; Gibbs Cloverdale Wilson Forest Park Mitchell Terry (black) 454 'S\u0026lt;i367''  329 .:.:S:329\n\u0026gt;-.' Name Carver (per 600 whita pupils 551 Forest Park ' 548 McDermott Romine Western Hills Otter Creek Rightsell Stephens Geyer Springs Ish Booker Fulbright Baseline Watson Fair Park Rockefeller Meadowcliff Jefferson Wakefield Brady Franklin Dodd Chicot Mabelvale ' Badgett Pul. Heights 325 312 311 303 296 294 284 283 272 i 272 263: 262 259 259 258 246 245 245 242 240 240 226 218 217 212 209 : :::208 Washington 207 Garland Woodruff Bale 204 202 188 Williams Gibbs- : Jefferson Otter Creek? Washington Booker McDermott Fulbright\\ : Western Hills Terry Pul. Heights Fair Park Rockefeller Meadowcliff Brady Franklin Cloverdale Watson. - Geyer. Springs Wakefield Bale Chicot Romine Wil sen Woodruff Mabelvale Dodd Bale . Baagett Stephens\" Garland\" Mitcheir* Ish\" Rightseil\" 542 537 498 490 483 481 477 475 . - 472 468 : 426 417 415 409 404 402 400 372: \\ 369 368 366 358 354 351 345 330 325 318 306 283 261 255 206 *AI1 pupils based on total percentile rank for each grade \"Total points possible are less than 6CC because there were not white students enrolled in all grades.Metropolitan Achievement Tests ,tK': The chart shows how Arkansas students ranked against national percentiles on the MAT~6 tests, 1986-91 I '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 Composite / Basic Battery 64 66 66 67 67 65 Total reading 60 62 62 62 62 61 Total math 67 68 67 70 70 69 Total language 63 64 65 66 65 64 u Composite / Basic Battery 54 58 59 60 61 60 Total reading 51 53 55 Total math 53 57 58 Total language 55 59 61 55 59 62 55 54 60 59 63 61 ( Composite / Basic Battery 53 54 55 56 58 57 , fOtA, Total reading 49 49 50 Total math 50 51 52 Total language 58 59 60 51 51 52 I 53 61 55 54 62 61 SOURCE: Nat'l Education Assn. 7- M. STOREY / Democrat-Ga2etteI I, t * Arkansas Democrat MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1991 B  I  I 4 J J 1 U Magnet schools rank highest in MAT6 scores 4  l! , BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat Staff Writer A ranking of Little Rock\nSchool District schools based I on their Metropolitan Achieve- ! ment Test results from last I I spring puts Williams Magnet I Elementary, Mann Magnet Jun- i ior High and Parkview Magnet I High schools on top. : Garland Elementary, South- i west Junior High and McClellan High schools make up the bottom of the lists when only test scores are considered. The test assesses students in the areas of social studies, mathematics, reading, language arts and science. Williams, which offers a basic skills magnet program, had the highest number of points, followed by Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet School, Forest Park Elementary, Gibbs International Studies Magnet School and Otter Creek Elementary School. Four of the top 10 elementary schools were magnet schools, meaning they have special academic themes, strict rules on parent involvement and are open to pupils from all three Pulaski County school districts. The schools were created to enhance desegregation and are financed by all three districts and the state, which pays half the cost of educating each child. Parents voluntarily enroll their children in the magnet schools. No students are assigned to the schools. Little Rock Superintendent Ruth Steele in an interview last week cautioned that ranking schools could be like comparing apples and oranges. You have to remember that children or their parents want to be at the magnet schools and that they came from all three school districts, she said. They have waited on lists or participated in a lottery to be in those schools. That can be very different than staying at an assigned school. She also noted that poverty can affect student achievement and the incidence of poverty is likely to be greater among students in the districts area schools and predominantly black incentive ! 4 H I  3 ' J J i schools. Area schools are schools that have attendance I J zones and no special court-or- J dered desegregation program. The Arkansas Democrat t  I t  ranked the schools based on 5 ' the school-by-schooi, grade-by- t 1 grade data released by the dis- , trict last week. Three sets of 5 rankings were done using the ? test scores of all students, the a | scores of all black students J I and the scores of all white Stu- * dents. The rankings revealed: ,  Tremendous disparities j 4 exist between the average 4 achievement levels of black 4 and white students in the dis- 5 trict, and between schools in ,4 the district.  Eight elementary schools 1 I that ranked in the top 12 had both high white scores and the ! high black scores, indicating * that schools that do a good job ! for one race do a good job for J the other.  The elementary incentive J schools, which get double per- J See SCORES, Page 5B I I i J 1 Scores MAT 6 anaylsis for elementary schools  Continued from Arkansas Page pupil funding and are designed to improve the achievement level of black children, had mixed test results. Mitchell Elementary ranked highest among the incentive schools.  Some of the districts area schools, like Forest Park, Cloverdale, McDermott and Western Hills, reported high or fairly high test results. Those schools dont get the special funding and public attention that magnets and incentive schools get. The school rankings were determined by adding the percentile scores for all grades at a school. Fer example, Williams first-graders scored at the 92nd percentile. That was added to the second grade per- centile of 88, the third-grade percentile of 75, the fourthgrade score of 85, the fifthgrade score of 80 and the sixthgrade score of 82 for a total of 502 points. The highest number of points possible at any grade wa.s 100, thus the total perfect score would be 600. An average score was 300. Eighteen of the districts elementary schools scored above the 300 mark and 18 scored below. When the scores of black students were considered. only nine schools had 300 or more points. When white scores were considered in isolation, all schools scored above average. (The average for white students is less than 300 at some of the incentive schools because there were not white students in every grade.) I told the principals that whatever conclusions are drawn about the test scores, it is clear that what happens in a class to white students is very different than what happens to . black students, Steele said. Theres a lot of work for everybody to do. Im not pleased\nI cant be pleased when there are disparities of 30 percentile points or more between black and white children. (Total possible score is 600. School average of 50% or higher is 300 or more total points) Ranking Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Williams Magnet Carver Ma^t Forest Park area Gibbs Magnet Otter Creek area Terry area Jefferson area McDermott area Fulbright area Booker Magnet Western Hilts area Cloverdale area Washington Magnet WSson area Mitchell incentive Geyer Springs aroa Meadowcliff area Romine area Watson area Fair Park area Rightsell incentive Rockefeller incentive Wakefield area Brady araa Pul. Heights area Stephens incentive Baseline area Ish tocentive Woodruff ares Mabelvale area Chicot area Dodd area Franklin area Badgett area Bale area Garland incentive Total points* Name 502 474 455 444 402 393 392 377 372 366 363 349 338 335 320 308 308 306 291 283 283 283 282 281 261 279 269 268 267 264 262 260 255 226 218 213 Williams Carver Gibbs Cloverdale Wilson Forest Park Mitchell Terry McDermott Romir\u0026gt;e Western Hilis Otter Creek Rightsell Stephens Total points (black) 454 367 329 329 325 322  312 311 303 296 294 284 283 272 Name Carver Forest Park Williams Gibbs Jefferson Otter Creek Washington Booker McDermott Fulbright Total points (per 600 white' pupils Geyer Springs 272 Ish Booker Fulbright Baseline Watson Fair Park Rockefeller Meadowcliff Jefferson Wakefield Brady Franklin Dodd Chico\nMabelvale Badgett Pui. Weights Washington Garland Woodruff Bate 263 262 259 259 258 246 245 245 242 240 240 226 218 21' 212 209 208 207 204 202 188 Western Hills Terry Pul. Heights Fair Park Rockefellei Meadowcliff Brady FrankJir^ Cloverdale Watson 551 548 542 537 498 490 483 481 477 475 472 468 426 417 415 409 404 402 400 372 I I I Geyer Springs 369 Wakefield Bale Chicot Romine Wil sen Woodruff Mabelvale Dodd Bale Badgett Stephens* Garland Miicbeil** Ish** Rightseil* 368 366 358 354 351 345 330 325 318 306 283 261 255 206 All pupils based on total percentile rank for each grade Total points possible are less than 600 because there were not white students enrollee in all grades. The results of the MAT6 will be used to determine whether the district must repay a $20 million loan to the state of Arkansas. The loan is a provision in the districts financial settlement of the 8-year-oid school desegregation lawsuit with the state. If the district raises the average score of black children to 90 percent of the average score of white students by the year 2000, the district will not have to repay the money. The incentive schools are intended to help the district meet that goal by offering after-school, weekend and summer programs, as well as smaller class sizes, parent centers and field trips. When the scores of black children are considered by themselves, Mitchell students ranked seventh in the district. Rightsell Elementary ranked : 13th, Stephens was i4th and Ish was 16th, Rockefeller was 22nd and Garland 34th. Black students at Mitchell outscored black students at Terry, McDermott, and Jefferson, which are area schools, and at | Booker Magnet and Washing- 5 ton Magnet elementaries. In the junior high rankings, ,, Mann was first, followed by Pulaski Heights, Forest  Heights, Dunbar, Henderson, Mabelvale, Cloverdale and j Heights Southwest. Dunbar, the dis- s tricts newest magnet school, showed some large gains in scores when compared to last year. At the high school level, Parkview was first, followed by I Central, Hall, Fair and McClel- j Ian. When only the scores of white students were ranked, Central Parkview. was ahead ofuiasKi Black pupils in LRSD below national average on Stanford 8 scores BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Black pupils in the Little Rock School District on average scored below the national average in all subjects and at all reported grade levels on the new Stanford Achievement Test. Eighth Edition. White pupils, on the average, scored above the national average in ail subjects and at -all grades reported. Dr. Ruth Steele, whose last day of work in the Little Bock School District is today, said Thursday the scores had changed little since last year. A disparity between black and white pupils continues to exist in the district, Steele said. As superintendent, I must say that one of my disappointments has been our inability to significantly raise the test scores and reduce the disparity, she said. score earned by black pupils was at the 48th percentile in sixth-grade math and fifth- grade social studies. The lowest average score was at the 28th percentile in fifth-grade reading. The 50th percentile is considered to be the national average. 7 must say that one of my disappointments has been our inability to significantly raise the test scores and reduce the disparity. ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1992 LRSD SAT results Stanford Achievement test. Eighth Edition national percentile {Districtwide summary, 1992) rank The achievement disparity between the races exceeded 30 points in some subjects and grades. . Steele is retiring from the district and will become a half-time associate professor in the College of Education at the University of Central Arkansas. Dr. Mac Bernd, formerly a superintendent in San Diego County, Calif., will replace her. According to the test results, the highest average The highest average score for white pupils was at the 77th percentile in second-grade math and the lowest was at the 57th percentile in grade-nine math. The achievement disparity between the races exceeded 30 points in some subjects and grades. In eighth-grade reading, white pupils scored at the 67th percentile, compared to black pupils 29th percentile score. A total of 19,287 pupils in grades one through 11 took the nationally standardized exam last spring. The Stanford 8 replaces the Metropolitan Achievement Test, Sixth Edition, which had been administered in past years. The Stanford 8 compares the achievement levels of Little Rock pupils with the achievement levels of a national sample of pupils who took the same tests. The test is especially signif- Grade/ race 1 TOTAL B W 2 TOTAL B W 3 TOTAL B W . -4 TOTAL 5 TOTAL B _______W. 6 TOTAL B _______W .2JQTAL 8 TOTAL B ______ML 9 TOTAL B ______ML *10 TOTAL 11 TOTAL B W Number tested 2,094 1,330 697 1,883 1,173 672' 1,783 1,131 632 1.867 1,922 1,288 612 1,843 1,209 609 1.694 1,573 1,060 493 1,554 995 ___53fi_ 1.602 1,472 825 612 Total Total Environment Soc. reading math Lang. Science science 42 35 63 39 29 62 39 27 63 44 38 26 63 50 37 24. AZ 41 29 44 30 ja. 49 50 34 69 48 40 70 57 46 n 58 46 76 58 53 43 2L 57 74 JS. 39 30 59 34 23 .52. 37 43 32 59 41 32 63 49 39 70 50 38 70 4^ 48 38 52 51 41 55 45 48 38 52. 54 42 25 48 48 35 66 37 27 59 43 32 65 43 30 67 46 45 33 20. 54 43 24. .42. 45 34 58. 50 38 22. 45 47 32 68 46 35 67 48 46 37 55. 59 48 25 42 46 34 22 49 36 73 43 51 36 69 Complete battery 39 31 64 45 33 70 47 34 70 47 44 32 ___S2_ 54 43 75 ___4S_ 43 30 ___sa_ 48 34 73 47 51 34 12. 'Data by race for grades 4,7 and 10 are unavailable at this time. \" At grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT NOTE: Totals may not add up because other* category was omitted. leant to the Little Rock School District in light of the district's financial settlement agreement with the state of Arkansas. If the district raises the average scores of black children to at least 90 percent of the average score earned by white pupils by the year 2000, the district will not have to repay a $20 million loan. The state is loaning the district the money to aid in the districts desegregation efforts. The district Thursday had not yet broken the test scores down by school, said Sterling Ingram, director of the districts planning, research and evaluation office. The district also does not have the fourth-, seventh- and 10th-grade scores broken down by race yet Those grades are handled differently in scoring the tests because the test results must be reported to the state Department of Education./   ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  THURSDAY, MAY 14,1992  1 2Wof LR eighth-graders fail state performance test t I L BY CYNIHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Stall Writer The number of Little Rock eighth-graders who failed the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test in March climbed to LRSD 1992 MPT results (Eighth grade summary) a record 412 pupils, who arc now in jeopardy of not being promoted. Statistics released Wednesday by the Little Rock School District show that 23 percent of 1.781 eighth-graders failed the exam on the first attempt. Last year, 400 pupils, or 22 percent of the test-takers, failed the exam on the first try. 'The Minimum Performance Test, mandated by the slate, tests students in reading, math, language arts, science and social studies. It is given to pupils in third, sixth and eighth grades, though only eighth-graders must pas.s the exam to be eligible for promotion to the ninth grade. The Little Rock eighth- graders' failure rates are^ almost 7 percentage point.s higher than those recorded for the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts, which released their All students I No. tested No. passed Percent passed Black males  Percent passed Black females - Percent passed White males  Percent passed White Females Percent passed Other--------------- Percent passed Reading 1,781 1,505 85 Math 1,781 1,523 86 Lang. Arts 1,781 1.435 81 Science 1,781 1,110 62 Soc. Slud. 1,781 1,172 66 Total 1,781. 1,369 77 76 79 69 57 57 NA 81 84 81 47 57 NA 96 98 97 94 88 87 84 NA 95 95 83 85 NA 92 86 81 81 NA 3 testing results Tuesday. Eighth-graders in both those districLs had 16.2 percent fail- ure rates. Pupils have three chances to pass the eighth-grade test The test will be given again May 26-29 and once more July 24-2!l. Last year, 92 percent of the eighth-graders . districts passed the test after three tries. Of the Little Rock eighth- graders who failed, 90 percent are black, though black.s make up 64 percent of the district's enrollment. A total of 372 black eighth-graders failed the test, as did 40 white pupils. Seventy pupils, or 34 percent of the test-takers at Southwest Junior High School, failed the test thi.s year. South- west's failure rate was the highest among the eight junior high schools. Mann Magnet Junior High School had the highest pass rate 87 percent. Here are the failure rates fol' the other junior highs:  Forest Heights Junior High - 73 failures, 32 percent.  Mabelvale Junior High - 52 failures, 30 percent.  Henderson Junior High - 54 failures, 25 percent.  Dunbar Magnet Junior High - 50 failures, 21 percent.  Cloverdale Junior High - 37 failures, 17 percent.  Pulaski Heights Junior High - 30 failures, 16 percent. Among the district's third- graders, 68 percent passed the reading test, compared to 88 percent last year. Eighty-seven percent of the third-graders passed the math test last year, compared to 91 percent this year. At Carver Magnet Elementary School, all third-graders passed the reading test and 99 percent passed the math test. See TEST, Page 7B lebi j  Continued horn Pulaski Page\nAll Gibbs Magnet School third- */[ (I __________ js^uisiig nin fit ittainHn I r graders the test All s ividf^iivb .J...--- passed both parts of 1 \"Uie Uiird-graders at 1, Otter Creek, J\n^I(i:i^'aTwe\n^n-llills I passed the math test. Overall, pas.s rates lor sixth- Overall, pass uveiaii, , graders fell from 94 percent to m normiil Ulis year in reading. 92 percent this year  90 ^r-U to 89 1 in inatli.iind rroni TH perceiiUo\n77 percent in language aits. ____ imnro I ates improved The pass rates improveu 73 percent to 75 percent from LRSD desegregation official resigns to take post at Hendrix ir science JI VVHV vv r- - and 73 percent to 74 IP hvivuv-'- I..-  1 l^uccnt in social studies. I Janies Jennings, associate .superintendent for desegregation in tile Little Rock School District, said Wednesday that lie i.s resigning to become an assistant professor of education at Hendrix College in Con- I  way. Jennings, who has been an associate superintendent since March 1987 and a district I L i I einployce since 1977, said his resignation is effective Juno 30. lie is completing liis doctorate in educational administra- tion this spring at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. He will attend Memphis Slate University thi.s summer and next fall to obtain a master's degree in history. Jennings is one of five top administrators leaving the district this year. The others include Superintendent Ruth Steele, Deputy Superintendent Tony Wood, Manager for Support Services Janies Ivey and Transportation Director Richard Johnson.Arkansas Democrat W(Sazettc ABk-AMCAg- MCWCPAPFR LITTLE ROCK. AUGUST 14,1992 88 PAGES 9 SECTIONS 35e White students still outpace blacks, achievement tests show BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer White students in the Little Rock School District continued to outperform blacks in standardized tests in 1991-92, according to school-by-school results on the Stanford Achieve- mejit Test, eighth edition. - The scores were released .i74th percentile to the 82nd per- Thursday for exams taken in April by 19,287 students in grades kindergarten through 11. They show wide variations in achievement between schools. For example, Williams Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School averaged scores for the six grades that ranged from the i centile. Pupils in five of the six, ^ades at Garland and Franklin incentive elementaries averaged scores that were below the 30th percentile. The 50th percentile is considered the national average. We have some areas to cheer about, and some we could hold a wake over, Dr. Mac .1 Bernd, Little Rocks new school superintendent, said. The test shows us where we need to improve. The test results and the elimination of the racial disparity gap are especially important to the Little Rock district. Narrowing the gap would be a general sign that )^e district is ac- . - ) eomplishing its desegregation goals. Also, if the district narrows the gap to the degree that the average score of black students is at least 90 percent of the average score of white students by 2000, the district won't have to repay a $20 million desegrega- See TESTS, Page 14AH4A  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  FRIDAY, AUGUST 14,1992 LRSD Stanford 8 Test results Chart shows percentile ranking, by grade and race, of the tests complete battery. A ranking in the 50th percentile is considered average. Elementary Badgett Dale Baseline Booker(M) Brady Carver (M) Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin (1) Fulbright Garland (I) Geyer Springs Gibbs (M) Ish (1) Jefferson Mabelvale' McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchel! (I) Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Righlsell (I) Rockefeller (I) Romine Stephens (I) Terry Wakefield Washington (M) Watson Western Hills Williams (M) Wilson Woodruff 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT 19 20 27 23 27 25 35 21 47 36 76 68 35 26 56 54 21 22 33 26 61 29 21 19 40 18 26 26 32 26 49 36 25 25 54 21 31 24 59 35 31 26 26 25 54 38 42 18 39 40 42 37 49 47 24 24 61 43 21 18 55 38 24 22 43 29 80 72 68 67 28 14 17 65 34 54 66 85 50 71 20 70 84 48 66 38 68 75 40 84 44 49 70 73 51 63 25 71 33 82 32 61 89 71 56 39 31 67 29 26 54 28 22 47 52 35 74 44 39 58 73 54 89 36 26 56 49 39 77 36 27 44 31 22 71 64 30 74 23 21 59 60 41 75 26 23 58 47 40 64 71 53 84 43 43 49 58 28 77 37 27 52 61 40 82 34 28 47 26 26 12 57 30 69 55 27 76 58 58 - 30 24 53 25 26 16 22 22 - 54 33 67 36 26 48 52 29 81 39 34 64 52 40 72 79 68 89 58 54 63 26 18 40 33 30 45 31 30 35 38 31 63 44 29 60 30 20 64 72 49 90 39 36 46 54 50 61 31 28 35 36 27 72 66 32 66 20 18 42 63 35 78 17 17 - 33 33 32 72 57 88 31 31 - 63 46 76 38 28 52 69 54 81 31 29 27 30 27 71 60 39 76 62 39 78 34 34  25 18 39 40 40 42 31 31 - 68 50 82 37 30 49 44 22 72 31 20 58 53 40 71 77 67 86 45 41 56 35 28 60 32 25 44 60 38 74 37 57 42 41 56 23 56 26 / 33 lij 67 m 38 3 58 g 36 \u0026lt; 56 5 37 H 26 i 56 i 47 I 32 I 26 i 41 I 47 1 54 i 42 i 51 i 40 i 39 i 74 I 38 i 33 5 lU co \u0026lt; O z 21 20 24 31 28 47 35 36 32 51 41 65 33 29 41 63 42 82 40 32 54 49 43 63 48 42 44 30 27 71 57 31 87 20 19 18 46 29 61 28 28 - 32 25 49 67 40 88 31 32 20 68 37 85 38 30 49 53 40 68 33 19 56 42 40 67 52 37 69 44 28 62 29 29 - 35 32 52 39 38 42 26 26 - 46 31 67 28 22 56 46 28 70 45 46 44 40 31 60 74 59 86 30 29 39 45 38 54 41 38 46 30 27 46 37 36 46 59 44 76 44 32 66 79 69 90 47 36 59 51 50 56 56 48 65 47 41 75 64 43 82 36 34 67 66 40 78 38 38 - 44 43 48 72 48 87 44 44 - 79 56 90 41 35 52 50 43 67 51 46 67 36 36 - 66 39 84 36 28 54 40 40 - 45 40 61 44 41 76 35 30 76 71 57 82 43 36 59 56 38 78 53 40 71 60 51 72 82 76 88 44 41 56 38 30 50 Jr. high Cloverdale Dunbar(M) Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann (M) Pulaski Heights Southwest 7 8 9 35 59 50 37 33 55 55 34 LU m LU \u0026lt; 32 27 49 39 33 53 53- 36 72 39 26 65 37 29 66 38 25 69 50 38 74 42 34 70 Sr. high Central Fair Hall McClellan 10 11 37 27 56 ' 42 29 61 O z O z 56 43 79 45 26 76 33 28 50 61 64 82 57 30 82 40 33 66 55 36 43 34 LU CO 3 UJ (D 3 Parkview (M) 58 b z  57 33 82 39 28 58 50 34 69 42 33 56 57 43 75 Noles: Scores lor race by grades 4,7 and 10 are not yel available. Magnet schools are noted with an *M*, Incentive schools are noted with an 'I'. Tests  Continued from Page 1A lion loan from the slate.  Bernd said the districl.s new curriculiini, which begin.s this fall, could improve scores. Its a simple concept of teaching students what you are going to test them on, he said. If we know that long division ixS on the lest, then we should make sure the students know long division and are skilled in it. Asked if the scores would show improvement by next year, Bernd said he gets suspicious if he sees sudden,huge gains in a ^districts test scores. ' I think we can set this district on a course of steady improvement so that in five years people can look back and say, \"We really improved.  Il is difficult to compare the 1991-92 lest scores lo the scores earned in past years because the state changed the test from the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6) to the Stanford 8. Racial disparities existed in test results on the MAT6 as well. While comparisons are hard to make from last year to this year on race disparities, a review of the scores this year showed at least one case where the white first-graders scored 54 points higher than their black */ think we can set this district on a course of steady improvement so that in five years people can look back and say ff f we really improved. classmates. A review of the scores showed that students at the dis tricts seven double-funded, pre- dominantly black incentive schools did not have high average scores. Black second-graders at Rightsell Incentive Elementary School scored at the 58th percentile. That was the only average score for black children in the incentive schools that was above the 50th percentile. Students at the districts magnet schools, which also get extra money, averaged scores higher than the incentive schools. Scores for black children at Williams ranged from the 59th percentile in the fifth grade to 76th percentile in the sixth grade. At Booker Arts Magnet Elementary, however, the scores for the black children ranged from the 21st percentile in the first grade to the 44lh percentile in the sixth grade. Bernd said the incentive schools are going to be the focus of some strong efforts in the coming year. He plans to meet with the principals of those schools soon to discuss ways to improve the schools by encouraging excellent teaching. Bernd is an advocate of the effective schools body research, which prescribes certain steps for improving learning conditions for children. He already has conducted one workshop for Little Rock principals on the program. The test scores showed some strengths at the districts area schools, which arc non-magnet, non-incentive neighborhood schools. Forest Park, Jefferson, and Terry elementary schools were among the schools with average scores over the 50th percentile...IB'- rs I\" it (? tg 5.  THUnSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1992 LR seniors raise ACT average 0.2 point in 92 ) I ) BY CYNIHIA ROWELI OnnKR'ial G.i7rHP E(1ih\niIiwi WhIpi The composite score earned by Little Rock School Dislrict .senior.s on the American College Test improved in 1992 as compared to 1991. but it remained below the stale and national composite scores. The Little Rock district on Wednesday released its 1992 scores for both the ACT and the Scholastic Achievement Test, the two most common college enirance exams in (he country. More than three times a,s man.v Lillie Rock graduating studenl.s took the AI'T ill 1991- 92 than look the SAT. Thal is I commonly the case, as most , Arkansas colleges and universities retpiest the At/!' score on I enrol I incut applications. The results of the exams I\nshowed that students who took traditional academic courses and Advanced Placement courses are more likely tr? score higher on the college entrance tests. Superintendent Mac Bernd said he hoped to increase the nund)er of advanced courses as a way of improving student achievement levels of both black and white students. Ad vanced Placement courses are LRSD ACT scores ^1992 LRSD SAT scores i National State LRSD Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview -Noniber 832.217 16,977 1,101 *264 *144 *224 *155 *166 Composite\n___score 20.6 20.0 19.7 19.9 19.1 19.9 18.3 20.7 Black students While sludenls Number Composite Number Composite 1991 Number 75,356 2,373 465 141 65 92 82 85 17 16.7 17.2 16.2 16.4 17.7 17.0 18.9 604,469 11,577 488 123 79 132 73 81 21.3 20,6 21.7 23.0 21.6 21.1 20.0 22.5 tested Verbal 1991 scores* * Includes only black and wtiite tesi takers and nol students of other races _____________ National' State LRSD Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview 1,032,685 1,660 293 151 15 97 4 26 422 482 467 480 485 434 NA 502 Math 474 523 495 502 527 477 NA 516 1992 Number tested 1,034,131 1,579 315 122 24 96 3 64 1992 scores* Verbal 423 474 453 457 451 441 NA 455 Math 476 516 489 489 521 486 NA 481 * Top score in each category Is 800. NA = not available those courses taken in high school that enable some stu dents to receive college credit for their work. \"We must work to prepare all our students to (pialify for. enroll ill and complete the more advanced and challenging Advanced Placement courses,\" Bernd said. A total of 1.101 graduating students took the ACT in Little Rock. Slightly more students took the test in 1992 than in at least the last four years. The district's composite score of 19.7 reversed an annual decline in score.s since at least 19117. when the composite was 20.2. In 1991. the composite  which i.s c.ilculated from Eiig- lish. mathcnmlics. rcadiiiE and science scores  was 19..5. The Little Rock score was below the national composite of 20.6 and the state composite of 20.0. Parkview Magnet High School students, with a 20.7 composite score, exceeded both the state and national composite scores. The highest possible score is 36. The Little Rock student!! scored the highest in reading. Allowed by English, science, and then math. When the scores arc broken down by race, while student.s in all five Little Rock high school.s scored highest in reading. Black students, however, were likely to score a.s high or higher in subjects other than reading. Average scores for white students were higher than average score.s for black sludenls on both the ACT and the SAT. The largest disparity in ACT scores was the 6.8 poinis between black and white students at Central High. The composite score of Little Rock black students. 17.2. was higher than the Arkansas com posite for black students, 16.7, and the national composite for black students, 17.0. Similarly, the composite score for Little Rock white stu dents, 21.7, was higher than the Arkansas composite for whites, 20.6, and the national composite for wliites, 21.3. On the SAT. a total of315 slu dents took the lest, scoring 453 on the verbal exam and 4B9 on the math exam. Both scores represented a decline from the 19tH scores of 467 on the verbal exam and 495 on the math exam. The number of students taking the lest rose by 22 from 293 in 1991. The Little Rock scores exceeded the national scores of 423 on verbal and 476 on math tests, but they were less than the state averages of 474 on the ver bal test and 516 on the math exam. I 1Arkansas Democrat ^(i^azctte THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1993 Copyright  1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. B LR group hopes after-school tutors will raise black awareness, grades BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer An after-school and Saturday educational program that offers academic tutoring and cultural exposure to black students in the Little Rock School District is being planned for next fall by an off-campus group. Wayne E.X. Burt, chief elder of the Council for African-American Progress, said Wednesday that the after-school program will be housed in the education building of the Liberty Hill Baptist Church, 1215 S. Schiller St. The council is seeking at least 24 trained teachers, as well as volunteer tutors, to work in the program, Burt said. The program is designed to serve as many as 500 students in grades one through 12, Burt said. Hours will be 3:30 p.m. until 8 p.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. to noon Saturdays. The program, called the Institute of African-American Studies and Progress, will be financed by council members. No tuition will be charged. Burt announced the councils plans at a lecture at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. His talk was one of three lectures sponsored this semester by the UALR Black Forum. The program will save the Little Rock School District $20 million, Terrence Cain, education director for the council, said Wednesday. Cain was referring to a $20 million loan from the state of Arkansas that the school district will not have to repay if it can raise black childrens standardized test scores to within 10 percent of white students scores by the year 2000. Cain and Burt said they believe their program can reduce the academic achievement disparity that has traditionally existed. The Council for African- American Progress spent more than a year lobbying the Little Rock School Board to add more information about black history, culture and perspective to the district curricula. The school board did adopt a new curriculum that includes information about a variety of cultures, but council members have said they are not satisfied with those offerings. Burt said the council decided to turn its attention to an afterschool program. In his lecture Wednesday, Burt said blacks must learn to provide for themselves, to create industries and jobs for one another. One segment of the community is producing jobs and two segments need them, he said. He also s4id blacks must learn about themselves as a way to develop self-esteem. Black and white Americans know far more about European history and geography than they do about Africa,land both races must be educated, he said. I (Arkansas Democrat (gazette   FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1993 Copynght  1993. Una Rock Newspapofs. Inc, I Flunking MPT no longer i forces rerun of Sth graded' New law brings other criteria to bear  BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Wnter Arkansas Minimum Performance Test wont terrify eighthgraders anymore. It wont force them to repeat the grade or intimidate them into dropping out Instead, the MPT and new tests that will be developed can help students, many educators say. Arkansas pupils in grades three, six and eight have taken the MPT since 1982 to measure their competence in basic skills. In 1988, at the suggestion of the Education Standards Committee led by Hillary Rodham Clinton, schools began to use the test to determine whether eighth-graders could advance to the ninth grade. But a new state law has changed things. The requirement that eighth- graders pass the test before promotion brought considerable criticism. Teachers and parents have complained over the years about the eighth-grade MPT, saying too much instructional time is spent preparing students for a relatively e^asy, multiplechoice test. In a recent Winthrop Rock^ feller Foundation survey at. 2,100 teachers, the educators said the test was too easy, de-^ tracted from the teaching of cre^' ative and advanced thinking\nskills, and was more likely.to cause students to drop out than to motivate them. ' \"i. About one-fifth of the teach?\ners recommended eliminating the test Others suggested maior revisions in the format and the way it is used. -I- i In a significant change of dU  rection, this years Act 846 of the' I legislative session declared th'a^' eighth-graders who flunk the test will not automaticallylbe forced to repeat the eighth grade. And in what proved someJ thing of a surprise to educators\n: ! the provision affects this years: eighth-graders, who took the test in March. I  Under newly adopted guid^ lines, local school districts must establish other criteria which can include MPT failure and bad grades  to decide whether , r See MPT, Page 17AMPT  Continued Irom Page 1A a pupil should be held back. :rm particularly pleased they dropped the compulsory retention, Gene Jones, assistant superintendent for instruction in the North Little Rock School District, said of the new law. 1 was a little surprised they did it this year. -. Jones said he didnt believe mandatory retention had produced better-educated students. Several North Little Rock eighth-graders who failed the exam this year were held back last year for failing the test, he said. Students may be more successful if they know they can be jlromoted if they go to summer school or take other steps to raise their grades or improve their attendance, Jones said. ! Vicki Gray, administrative a'dyiser for student assessment ih the state Department of Education, said this week that despite the law change, school districts must continue with plans to give eighth-graders three chances to pass the exam and offer remedial help to those who do not pass. It's obvious the students have not mastered the skills they will need in ninth grade, Gray said of those who failed the tpsjt on their first try. i It is especially important that eighth-graders learn the skills this year because they will be thd first in the state required to Ilas^ an exit exam to get a high srchool diploma, she said. The exit exam, which will go into effect for the 1996-97 school year, dlso is provided for in Act 846. Act 846 authorizes the state pepartment of Education to change the way student achieve- hient and thinking skills are assessed in the public schools.  The law also spells out how the MPT should be used while Ihe new system is being developed. That transition period piust end by June 30,1996. Education Department officials are circulating a memo describing the law and the testing changes. It notes that:  Beginning next year, Ihird- graders will no longer take the MPT, though the te.st will continue for the sixth and eighth grades.  The Education Department will institute a comprehensive assessment program for grades one through three next year that will include testing and teacher evaluations.  School districts experimenting with alternate forms of student assessments may ask the state Board of Education to waive the MPT requirements for the sixth and eighth grades. The current test was developed by Arkansas educators. It consists of five sections  reading, mathematics, language arts, science and social studies. The exam is given once in March and again at the end of the school year. It is given again in midsummer for those who failed it earlier. In 1988, 98.6 percent of the eighth-graders passed the test. In 1992, 95.7 percent of the eighth-graders passed. Statewide test results are incomplete for this year, although individual school districts have received reports on their students' performances. Virginia Raum, director of counseling services in the Pulaski County Special School District, said the MPT has served a purpose in forcing school officials to look at what individual students were accomplishing. But she also said it is time to move to a different kind of assessment. The county school district is using the same methods it employed in past years to help eighth-graders who failed the test in March. The district hires substitute teachers so that regular classroom teachers can work in small groups with the pupils who failed. Packets of practice questions were sent to the parents so they also can help their children pass the test when they retake it later this month. Decisions on retentions will be made on a case-by-case basis aRer the third administra- I tion of the test, Raum said. Concerning development of a new testing system, Dr. Emma Bass, associate director for school improvement in the Education Department, said the new program may not consist of only a single test. Instead, she said, it will likely be a combination of different kinds of evaluations. The new system for grades one through three must be designed as soon as possible this summer to give school districts time to plan and budget for it, Bass said. Rules and regulations for any new system will be advertised and explained during public hearings, she said.Arkansas Democrat SATURDAY, MAY 22, 1993 Copyright O 1993, Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. I________________________________________________________ _______----------- ---------r - T III ...................................- -    MPT failure rates increase in NLR, county BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Qazette Education Writer Failure rates increased for North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school district eighth-graders on the Minimum Performance Test this year but improved slightly for Little Rock pupils. The test measures mastery of basic skills in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. Statistics released by the three Pulaski County districts showed:  Eighteen percent, or 267, of the county district students failed the slate-mandated exam on the first try in March, compared to 16.2 percent, or 223 students, last year.  Twenty-one percent, or 138, of North Little Rock pupils failed, compared to 16.2 percent, or 97 pupils, last year.  Twenty-two percent, or 383, of the Little Rock eighth-graders failed this year, a 1 percent improvement over last year, when a record 23 percent, or 412 pupils failed. Minimum Performance Test resuits 1993 Minimum Performance Test pass/fail rates District____________ Little Rock North Little Rock Pulaski County Special Total tested Total passing 1,750 668 1,455 1,367 (78%) 530 (79% 1,188 (82%) Note: Results following the first administration of the test, which will be given two more times. Source: School districts ___________________ by 1996 as newer, more broad- tive of a first year of a new cur- based exams are developed. The test results are reflec- riculum, Little Rock Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd said. The district this year began a revised curriculum in most key subject areas in an effort to correct problems found by a team of out-of-state educational auditors in 1991. Until this year, eighthgraders who failed the MPT could not enter the ninth grade. Students who fail the test this year also are in jeopardy of not passing the school year, but Act 846 of the 1993 legislative ses- High. The failure rate was 19 sion says criteria besides the test results must be considered before holding back a student. The MPT will be phased out Total failing 383 (22%) 138 (21%) 267(18%) The MPT will be given again this month and in July. School districts are directed by law to provide remedial help to the students who fail. Schools that have failure rates in excess of 15 percent must implement improvement programs. Following are the school-by-school results for the eighth-grade test:  Little Rock  The failure rate ranged from 16 percent at Mann Magnet Junior High to 29 percent at Cloverdale Junior percent at Dunbar Magnet Junior High, 23 percent at Forest Heights Junior High, 24 percent at Henderson Junior High, 23 percent at Mabelvale Jupior High, 18 percent at Pulaski Heights Junior High and 26 percent at Southwest Junior High.  North Little Rock  The failure rate ranged from 16 percent at Lakewood Middle School to 25 percent at Rose City Middle School. The rate was 19.per- cent at Ridgeroad Middle School. Only two of the'13'students at the alternative school who took the test passed it.'.  Pulaski County Special  The failure rate ranged from 9 percent at Robinson Jiihior High to 27 percent at Fuller Junior High. The failure rale was 18 percent at Jacksonville North Junior High, 26 percent at Jacksonville South Junior High\n10 percent at Northwood Junior High, 14 percent at Oiik Grove Junior High and 18 percent at Sylvan Hills Junior High: Virginia Raum, district director for guidance services, said there were computational errors at Jacksonville North and.Qak Grove, which will be corrected and reflected in later reports.Arkansas AAansas Democrat '^(Fijizcttc MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1993 Copyright O 1993. Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. B Rising remedial student figures disturb educator BY SHAREESE HAROLD ............................. Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer More Arkansas college freshmen took remedial courses in state-supported schools this year than did those who entered Arkansas public colleges and universities last year, a recent report shows. One state education official said the figures are disturbing. According to the 1993 high school feedback report, 57.1 percent of 1991-92 high school grad- uates attending the states public colleges and universities were assigned to at least one remedial course. Last year, 56.6 percent of the 1990-91 graduates were assigned to remedial math, reading or English classes. Remedial courses are semester-long, noncredit skills enhancement classes. Students are placed in these classes based on their performance on the ACT college entrance test or college- sponsored assessment examinations. Each year, the state Department of Higher Education releases two remedial monitoring reports. The high school feedback study shows how Arkansas high school students rank, and the placement status report, prepared by the American College Testing Service each spring, rates remediation levels of all Arkansas college freshmen. Ed Crowe, associate director of planning and research at the state Department of Higher Education, called this years feedback report figures disturbing. Especially since we had 50 percent of Arkansas (high school) students complete the core curriculum in high school, which should have prepared them for college,\" Crowe said. Its a little disappointing because we felt we were making progress. Districts core curricula include college preparatory courses designed to strengthen students math, reading and English skills. The major factor in college placement is whether students take these courses, Crowe said. In Arkansas, 50.7 percent of the fall 1992 freshmen took these courses in high school,___ pared to 43.8 percent last year and 41 percent in 1990. com- STATEWIDE: graduates The feedback report reflects the number of students who took the ACT college entrance exam. Students who score below 19 on any ACT category are automati- cally placed in a remedial course for that particular category. By subject area, 48.2 percent of the 1992 Arkansas graduates needed math remediation, a small decrease from the 48.9 percent who needed such help in 1991. In reading, 29.2 percent See COLLEGE, Pago 5B Pct, needing remediation in: High schools Graduates* l^nglish Math Readino ( Northwest  Fayetteville 107 Fort Smith (Southside) ioi Fort Smith (Northside) Springdale Van Buren Northeast Blytheville Jonesboro Newport Greene Co. Tech. Southwest Arkadelphia Ei Dorado Hope Hot Springs Southeast 69 103 52 46 156 52 .48 65 82 45 37 PULASKI COUNTY: High schools Pct needing remediation in\nGraduates* I English Math Reading J Dermott Pine Bluff Stuttgart 21 53 150 41 15 17 28 21 12 43 22 23 27 26 28 29 35 48 49 51 14 30 41 16 21 57 36 31 38 40 51 49 46 81 74 58 10 17 23 14 13 28 20 29 23 31 27 22 32 College  Continued from Page 1B took remedial courses, up from 27.8 percent the year before, and 33.1 percent needed English remediation, compared with 32.7 percent in 1991. Crowe estimated that 15 percent of the states college-bound seniors last year attended out- of-state and private colleges or universities. Those students are exempt from state-required college-entry testing in math, read- ing and English and are not included in the report. Act 1052 of 1987 requires all freshmen entering state-funded colleges and universities to complete math, reading and English placement tests. Future first-year college students from Arkansas may need fewer remedial programs, Crowe said, because of the states more rigid training for math and science teachers and early intervention. One long-term solution is coming from Governor (Jim Guy) Tuckers suggestion to the state Legislature urging them to look into strengthening the education process of kindergarten to third grades, Crowe said. Students are afraid of taking math and science classes because they were never encouraged to go that way in the early grades. Teachers are now being taught to emphasize those areas by stroking younger students curiosities about math and science. Crowe said once teachers are better trained to teach these courses, remedial placement scores should start to look better. Central Hall J.A. Fair McClellan Parkview Non-dlstrict Ark. School for the Blind Pulaski Co. Special Jacksonville Mills Oak Grove North Pulaski Robinson Sylvan Hills North Little Rock NLR High School Private schools 111 112 89 77 93 3 46 42 38 39 31 33 54 59 46 65 49 100 46 38 33 39 38 -ihM 33 26 27 25 17 13 21 26 ' , 108 44 53 92 39 119 146 55 42 16 13 31 27 25 25 18 29 22 51 48 49 38 38 34 37 29 55 13 46 57 60 43 '' 32 29 29  Flgum ar. la-tax gadoM, anading paOllc cgUagn and [sources: Stale Oept. o( Higher Education: Amencan Colleqe Testing Sarwce. Catholic High School Mount St. Mary Pulaski Academy I Arkansas Baptist 18 12 6 15 18 19 13 31 STOREY/SCALUON/Oemocrar-Ga^etre  SUNDAY, AUGUST 22, 1993  5J SAT results put males ahead Attention countrymen, who may have believed, as I always have, that women are smarter than men. The next time one of your countrywomen starts putting on airs, ask her about the SAT scores. SAT stands for Scholastic Aptitude Test. It is one of the tests that most colleges require would-be college students to take. There is a rousing argument in academic circles as to whether the test accomplishes its purported objective, which is to predict the probability of success in college, but it's been around for a couple of decades and it shows no signs of going away. The 1992 SAT scores were reported and hidden away in Thursdays Democrat-Gazette. Among the phalanx of comparative figures was this one: Men outperformed women. Not by just a little bit. The men creamed the women. Maybe I should say the boys creamed the girls, given that were talking about teen-agers here, but whatever the terminology, the average score of males was 930 to 877 for females. Males beat females on both the math and the verbal portions of the exam. The edge was only eight points on the verbal (428 to 420) so most of the male margin of victory was in the math portion, which measures the skills that will be most valuable in the technological age that is rapidly engulfing us. As you might expect, the College Board, which watches test results more closely than most of us, had a ready excuse for women. Men scored better, board spokesmen said, because they /I ^ohn R. Starr tend to take more difficult science and math courses, such as physics and calculus, in high school. That (and not discrimination) might also be why men have more of the high-paying jobs that demand math and science skills. News in the test scores was not all good for men, whose average score was exactly the same as last year. The womens average score was up a point. When SAT scores are reported, the comparison of the accomplishments of men and women is usually forgotten as the social scientists rush to see how blacks did in comparison with whites. The Scripps Howard News Service, which provided the SAT story used by the Democrat-Gazette this year, neglected to report SAT scores by race. Instead, the story used figures that show that youngsters from families with incomes over $70,000 a year do a lot better than those from families that live on $20,000 to $30,000 a year\nthat those who attend private schools do better than those who attend public schools\nand that those who attend suburban public schools do better than those who attend inner city schools. Results from tests administered by the three Pulaski County school districts did compare white and black performance, and these figures, like those in previous years, demonstrate that, while all men are created equal, differences develop rather quickly and often are quite pronounced. In Little Rock, where the public schools have almost been destroyed in a 26-year effort to equalize educational opportunity between the races, white scores on the Stanford 8 battery of tests were almost double those of blacks. In the fourth grade, whites were in the 75th percentile, which means they did better than 74 percent of the students taking the test nationwide. Blacks were in the 40th percentile. In the seventh grade, whites were in the 69th percentile, blacks in the 31st, In the 11th grade the percentiles were 74 for whites, 34 for blacks. Blacks did best (45th percentile) in the sixth grade, worst (28th percentile) in the first grade, indicating that the schools reduce the environmental factors that contribute to poor performance for the first six years but then begin to lose ground. The good news for Little Rock was that, generally, its students  white and black  did better than those from the other two districts. In the second grade in North Little Rock, blacks scored in the 13th percentile, a performance that should be embarrassing both to their parents and to the school district. ----------------- John R. Starr is the former managing editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. His column appears every day.Arkansas Democrat \"^(^azettc } THURSDAY, APRIL 7,1994 __Copyngh, 8 u. Ro I Insulting to black community I read with great dismay that Little Rock school Superintendent Henry Williams continues to pursue replacement of the SAT test as a good indicator of the educational level of the black student under his care. This continual quest of a lower common denominator for the black student is insulting to the black community, the Little Rock community at large and the classroom teachers of Little Rock. Williams continues to imply through this effort that a black student, while sitting in the same classroom and receiving the same information as a white, Korean, Hispanic or other student, is unable to take the same test in the same manner and produce positive results. If this is true, the SAT test is not the problem. Williams attempt to dumb down the test for black students or escape a test vehicle such as the SAT that is successfully used by tens of millions of students each year is a sickening statement of affairs in the Little Rock School District. Williams poor black us attitude is leading the black student to an educational grave. Is there not one member of the Little Rock School Board who has the courage to challenge Williams to factually prove and present specific examples of racial discrimination within the SAT? He should be publicly rebuked for such a reckless and racist attitude. Anyone who has taken the SAT knows that if you can read, write and do basic computations, then the SAT is easily understood. I believe that the black student is the equal of any other student, in spite of what Williams might imply. I reject his insinuation that the black student needs a set of tests and standards different from the rest of America and the world community. Will anyone speak this encouragement to them? I ISATURDAY, AUGUST 13. 1994 Coovncm O Crtda ftocx ^-nrwwrr. iw. Gap lingers between black, white scores BY DANNY SHAMEER AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat-Gazatts Stall Wntan A large gap persists between standardized test scores of black students and white students in the Little Rock School District, a report released Friday shows. Among black students, only fifth-graders improved for 1993- 94, increasing the average score three points to 37 from 34 for 1992-93. But white fifth-graders increased by four points  to 74 from 70  during the same period. A score of 50 is the national average. Scores  Continued from Page 1A great deal of energy and im- Narrowing the gap between black and white students is a key provision of the court-enforced desegregation settlement under which Pulaski County's three school districts operate. The disparity is also a significant issue because of a financial settlement with the state. If the district can show it has raised the average scores of black students to at least 90 percent of the average scores of whites by the year 2000, the district will not have to repay up to $20 million in loans from the state. The state is lending the dis- 10th.  In math, students in grades two, three, four, five and six were above the 50th percentile. In science, students in fourth. trict money to help with desegregation, and the financially struggling district counts on that money to meet e.xpenses. So far, the district has borrowed $12 million, and it plans to borrow another $1.6 million this fiscal year to buy buses. In two years, the district will have to start putting money into a trust fund to repay the state in case achievement goals arent met The settlement agreement states that the district must pay back the loan seven years after starting to get the money. Because the district borrowed $6 million in the 1989-90 school year, it would need to begin repayment in the 1996-97 school year. Dr. Henry Williams, district superintendent, said the 1994 test results reflected some gains by black students when compared to test results flrom previous years, and he was encouraged. He expects greater improvements ne.xt year at schools across the district. Im hoping the enthusiasm of building level administrators and teachers will generate a See SCORES, Page 16A Little Rock School District test scores 4 provements in instructional fifth and sixth were at or above strategies.\" Williams said. He the 50th percentile. noted that many schools will have new principals this year.  Black students on average failed to reach the 50th per- One reason that he gave this centile on the complete battery summer for shifting principals in any grade level. Black first- was to improve instruction and graders did the worst, scoring at student achievement. the 30th percentile. Black sixthTest results varied widely graders fared the best, reaching from school to school. For example:  Williams Magnet Elemen- the 44th percentile.  White students averaged above the 50th percentile in tary School black students every grade with a high of 78 at scored well above the 50th per- the sixth grade and a low of 68 centile in every grade level. The at the first grade. lowest black score was the 63rd Williams said the district percentile at the sixth grade, will implement a Great Expec- The highest was 80 at the first tations program at Mitchell and grade.  At Dodd Rightsell elementary schools Elementary that he hopes will help students School, the highest average per- knock the top ofF test scores centile by blac.k students was 48 next year. at the sixth grade. The lowest was the Sth percentile at the centive schools. Mitchell and Rightsell are in- first grade. Modeled after a program in In an example of disparity. Oklahoma City public schools. Forest Park Elementary School the Great Expectations program white second-graders scored at is an approach to teaching that the 85th percentile. But black promises student success. Stu- second-graders averaged the dents and teachers make a con- 21st percentile. Results showed: scious effort to speak in sentences and address each other by  In seven of 11 grades, name, students recite from mem- scores regardless of race. showed some increase over 1992 in the complete battery. ory. and students write daily. The Stanford 8. which students took last spring, compares  Students, overall, scored at the achievement levels of stu- or above the 50th percentile on dents with the achievement lev- the complete battery in four els of a national sample of stu- grades: fourth, fifth, sixth and dents who took the same test. 1994 test scores by grade Stanford Acfiievamant Test scores for the Uttfe Rock School District 88 7Z 7t  7^ 78 77 50 30 25 32 \n 0 47 44 III 32 I aadc.-.. r Whitar 1 '34  II I 3' 1 30 IhLULIlLIIJ 1st 2rxJ 3rd 4m sth em 7m sm 9m iom urn  Little Rock School District IST GRADE students took the. Start ford Achievement Test in April. Students who score in the 50th Reading percentile are at the naSortai axerage. Anything balovftheSOtnparcantila is considered bekw average. Math Language arts Science Social studies Total. 46 48 48 46 Blacfc 35 3S 2ND ORAOE 67 35 34t 69 3i6IUDE- Reading Math Language arts Sdenca- Social studies Reading Math Language arts Science- Sociai studies Reading Malhr , Language arts Science' Social studies Reading ' Language arts Sdene^ Social studies Total 41 58 51 48 Black 28 45 38 35 White 64 77 71 70 Total. 43 5T 51 4 52 Blaclc.\\^ 29 68 12 38 72 4g 39 74 ' ATHGRABE smeitAoe Total 49 61 55 50 61 Black 35 Whits 71 50 - TT 43 38 49 74 7Z 78 Thtat 41 5G' 56\n5^ 56 Biwdr'^ 28 67 j STH GRADE Total 52 59 53 57 58 Black White 39 49- 43 45 47 77 78 71 78 77 STH GRADE Total 42 41 '  51 I\"- 48 \" 48 Black 29\n30  ' 39 3S 34 lOTH GRADE 4at 44 *45 75 74 7TKGRADC\nTotal ' BiKfc 1 *45  52 '47 White 69 ^63.\" 74 \"72\"  73'\" 32 . J? 331^ 39 36 ETHGiUDe\nTout Bli 43 \"\" i 47  31 40 35 71 77 69 69 72 Reading Math Language arts Science Social studies Total 49 43 49 49 53 Black 35 33 36 34 41 Whita 74 81 71 74 73 UTH Total 45 40 46 43 47 31 69 -i, 33 68 (.n OvSt ScfToot Ostnet 31 71Arkansas Democrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1995 Whites score well in LRSD But districts blacks dont do as well on Stanford test as some in area BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazene Education Writer When it comes to student test scores, especially for white At a glance students. the Little Rock School District compares well to outlying districts. The state Department of Education released district-by- district Stanford Achievement Test results this week. A spot check of basic battery scores, broken down by race, showed that Little Rock white students overall netted higher scores than their peers in several Central .Arkansas districts, as well as in some of the states other large districts. The basic battery scores are a combination of mathematics, reading and language arts scores. Following is a listing of 10 school districts and their 1994 Stanford basic bat- tery scores for 1994:  School district  Little Rock  North Little Rock 4th grade 7th grade Black White Black White 10th grade Black White 42 31  Pulaski County Special 37  Conway  Cabot  Bryant  Pine Bluff  Jonesboro  Fort Smith  Fayetteville 43 na na 32 40 32 38 76 59 61 71 62 58 56 63 65 61 33 30 29 41 na na 32 35 33 38 69 58 51 65 58 53 71 67 61 63 36 28 28 33 na na 37 34 38 43 72 66 55 67 60 54 74 67 69 66 Little Rocks black students outperformed white stu- didnt fare quite as well. Black *es in the nearby Pulaski students attending Little Rock County Special, North Little schools scored higher than Rock, Conway, Cabot and black students in the Pulaski Bryant districts, according to the 1994 test results. County Special and North Little Rock districts, but that wasnt always the case in comparisons with other districts in Central Arkansas, The Arkansas Department of Little Rock whites also outscored  whites in the more distant Jonesboro, Fort Smith and Fayetteville districts. Little Rock whites scored at Education administers the the 76th percentile in the Stanford Achievement Test to fourth grade, the 69th per- students across the state in centile in the seventh grade fourth, seventh and 10th and the 72nd percentile in the gr^es. 10th grade. Of the 10 districts included The Arkansas students are compared to a national sample in the spot check, only the Pine of students, the percentile Bluff School District reported o , 1,. -- XU - higher average scores for tional average on the test, white students in two grades\nWhite students in grades white seventh-graders scored at commonly referred to as the na- four, seven and 10 in Little the 71st percentile, and 10th- graders scored at the 74th percentile. White fourth-graders in Pine Bluff scored below their Little Rock peers, at the 56th percentile. Little Rock black fourthgraders scored at the 42nd percentile, seventh-graders scored at the 33rd percentile and 10th- graders scored at the 36th percentile. Black students in the nearby Conway district outscored the Little Rock blacks at both the fourth and seventh grades. Black lOth-graders at Pine Bluff, Fort Smith and Fayetteville had higher average scores than their peers in Little Rock. The Cabot and Bryant districts had very few or no black students in the targeted grades.iMUHbUAY, JUNE 22. 1995 All SAT scores rising, but white pupils gains outdistancing blacks BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer standardized test scores earned by both black and white students in the three Pulaski County school districts have improved since 1991-92, but achievement disparities between the races have widened, according to a new study by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The study, submitted Wednesday to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber WrighL compares Pulaski County students scores in 1991-92 with those earned in 1993-94 on the Stanford Achievement Test eighth edition. In their desegregation plans, all three districts made commitments to reducing the achievement gaps that have traditionally existed between black and white students on standardized exams. The Little Rock School District, in particular, has staked repayment of a $20 million state loan on narrowing the racial disparity gap by the year 2000. The study looked at the 1991-92 test scores for first-, fourth-, seventh- and ninth-graders and the 1993-94 scores for third-, sixth-, ninth- and llth-graders. Among the three districts, black and white Little Rock students had the highest overall scores, followed by Pulaski County Special School District students. Although the North Little Rock district had the lowest overall scores, it also showed the greatest improvement between 1991-92 and 1993-94. North Little Rock students improved their scores on the exams five subject area tests by a total of 64.3 points, compared to 50.6 points in the Little Rock district and 59.2 points in the Pulaski County district The five subject area tests are in reading, mathematics, language arts, science and social studies. In Little Rock the disparity widened in most subjects at each grade by an average of 1.9 points. The disparity grew in each subject at each grade by an average of 1 point in the Pulaski County district LRSD board to meet on 2 budget issues The Little Rock School Board will hold a special meeting at 5 p.m. today to vote on budget proposals for next year, including hiring a private company to operate the school bus system and closing two elementaiy schools. After the special meeting, the board will hold its regular monthly meeting at 6 p.m. The board is to consider hiring Laidlaw Transit Inc. of Ontario and Cincinnati to run the bus system next year. The contract could save the district $700,000 next year. The board also will consider closing Badgett and Fair Park elementary schools, among the districts smallest schools, for a possible savings of about $1.1 million next year. and an average of 0.4 points in North Little RocL The actual 1993-94 test score disparities in Little Rock ranged from a low of 15.4 points between black and white sixth-graders in language ' arts to a 24-point gap between black and white third-graders in science. The disparity in Little Rock nar- , rowed only in sixth-grade language arts, ninth-grade reading and llUi- grade mathematics. In North Little Rock the 1993-94 disparities ranged from a low of 12.9 points between black and white sixth-graders in language arts to a 22.7-point gap in ninth-grade reading. The disparity gap narrowed in seven of the 19 categories analyzed, i In Pulaski County the disparities I between black and white students in 1993-94 ranged from a low of 9.1 points in llth-grade mathematics to  a gap of 16.4 points in sixth-grade reading. The disparity narrowed in seven of the 19 categories analyzed.THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1995 \nLRSD test scores slip overall, fail to close racial gap Superintendent Henry 1 Williams could not be reached BY MARTHA DUNN AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral QuelW Stall Writ. seven of 11 grades fell below last years. Students scored belter than the nalional average in just scores. f. j\nTwo years of improving Stan- three grades. High school seniors ford Achievement Test scores in tlie Little Rock School District pare Little Rock students scores ended this\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_749","title":"Volunteers","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":["1991/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Parents","Volunteer workers in public schools"],"dcterms_title":["Volunteers"],"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/749"],"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\nIncludes scattered issues of ''Volunteer News,'' Volunteers in Public Schools, Little Rock, Arkansas\nand news clippings.\nIt. Little Rock School District April 19, 1991 1 i ' hw '\u0026gt; ' ...er, OUice To: Ms. Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor From: ''^^ngela M. Sewall, Assistant Superintendent \\ Through: stelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent - Educational Programs and Staff Development Subject: A+ Arkansas and ACTION Proposal Attached you will find a copy of the Parent Involvement Project which three of our schools are undertaking in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, A+ Arkansas and ACTION. These are for your information. 810 West Markham Street Little RocK, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361OMB Approval No. 3001-0098 Expire! 07/31793 The average burden per response is eslimaled at 9 hours. Please direct any comments concerning the accuracy of this estimate or any suggestions for reducing it to (1) ACTION Clearance Officer, 1100 Vermont Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20525, and (2) Paperwork Reduction Project, OMB, New ExccutivcOfficeBldg., Washington, DC 20503. VOLUNTEERS IN SERVICE TO AMERICA (VISTA) Project Application The VISTA Project Application is to be filled in by all applicants requesting VISTA Volunteers. All pages are identified as \"Instructions for Page II or Page When assembling the final document, it is not necessary to reproduce or return any \"instructions\" pages. Submit one original, signed application and two copies of your submission to the ACTION State Office unless otherwise instructed. Completion of this VISTA Project Application does not guarantee that ACTION will assign VISTA Volunteers to your organization. Note requirements for signatures on pages 1, 10,11, and 12 (optional). ACTION Form A-1421 (10/90)CRITERIA FOR SELECTING VISTA SPONSORS The following criteria will be employed by ACTION staff in the selection of VISTA sponsors and in the approval of new and renewal VISTA projects. Your proposal must include all of the elements listed below. The project must\n1. 2. 3. 4. Be sponsored by a public or private nonprofit organization. Be poverty-related in scope and otherwise comply with the provisions of the Domestic Volunteer Serv- iceAct of 1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4951 eiseq.'), published regulations, guidelines, and ACTION policies which are applicable to VISTA. Comply with applicable financial and fiscal requirements established by ACTION or other elements of the Federal Government. Show that the goals, objectives, and volunteer tasks are attainable within the time frame during which the volunteers will be working on the project and will produce a measurable, verifiable result. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Provide for reasonable effons to recruit and invoh e low-income community residents in the planning, development, and implementation of the VISTA project. Offer evidence of local public and private sector support. Be designed to generate private sector resources and encourage local, part-time volunteer service. Provide for frequent and effective supervision of the volunteers. Identify resources needed and make them available for volunteers to perform their tasks. 10. Have the management and technical capability to implement the project successfully. Section 110 of theDomestic Volunteer Service Act, entitled Applications for Assistance by Previous Recipients, requires that the following language be included verbatim in each application for VISTA assistance: (a) DURATION.The Director shall not deny assistance under this part to any project or program, or any public or private nonprofit organization, solely on the basis of the duration of the assistance such project, program, or organization has previously received under this part. (b) CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION.The Director shall consider each application for the renewal of assistance under this part to any project or program on an individualized, case-by-case basis, taking into account (1) the extent to which the sponsoring organization has made good faith efforts to achieve the goals agreed on in die application of such project or program\nand (2) any extenuating circumstance beyond the control of the sponsoring organization that may have prevented, delayed, or otherwise impaired the achievement of such goals, (c) NEW PROJECT OR PROGRAM.The Director shall consider each application for assistance under this pan for a new project or program, that is submitted by a public or private nonprofit organization that has previously received such assistance (so long as such new project or program is clearly distinct from activities for which the organization has previously received such assistance), on an equal basis with all other applications for such assistance and without regard for the fact that the organizauon has previously received such assistance. (d) RENEWAL OF ASSISTANCE.With respect to any consideration that relates to the duration of assistance under this pan and that is applied by the Director in the case of a request for a renewal of assistance under this part, the Director may not apply any such considcrauon against any entity that is: (1) functioning as an intermediary between the Director and organizations requesung such renewal and ultimately receiving such assistance\nand (2) utilized by such organizations (A) to prepare and submit applications for such assistance to the Director\nand (B) to perform other administrative functions and service associated with applying for and receiving such assistance. (c) ELIGIBILITY.All eligible public and private nonprofit organizations shall be able to apply for assistance under this part. I I 1 1 CriteriaO.MB ApprovaJ No. 3001-0098 ______ E\\rlrt?: 07.ri 1/93 For ACTION use only: VISTA PROJECT APPLICATION DATE RECEIVED:____________ PROJECT NO________________ PROGRAM EMPHASIS AREA(S) 1. APPLICANT ORGANIZATION 5. Congressional District Number(s): Name Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce Address 1 Spring Street a. b. c. of Sponsor_________ of VISTA Project Sites Name each county in which Volunteers will City Little Rock State AR Zip Code 77201 serve: Pulaski County Area CodeZTelephone No. 501 374-4871 AGENCY DIRECTOR NAME Title 6. Was your organization previously a VISTA Sponsor? 2. PROJECT DIRECTOR Name Tine _____Marvin Schwartz Director - A+ Arkansas Yes Q No D No. of volunteers: Year(s): If yes, specify: PO Box 2060 Address (If different from above) City Little Rock State AR Zip Code 72203 Area Code/Telephone No. 1-800-535-4414 7. Was your organization previously assigned VISTA Volunteer(s)? Yes D No O No. of volunteers: Year(s): If yes, specify: 2 2 3. TYPE OF APPLICANT A. State B. Interstate C. Substale District D. County E. City F. School District G. Special Purpose District H. Community Action Agency 1. Higher Educational Institution J. Indian Tribe K. Other (Specify) Enter appropriate letter In box 8. Is application subject to review by State Executive Order 12372 process? I I Yes, this application was made available to the Slate Executive Order 12372 Process for review on:_____________________ State Application Identifier No. (assigned by State): _____________________________ n No, Program is not covered by E.O. 12372, or I I No, Program has not been selected by Slate tor review. 9. Is the applicant delinquent on any Federal debt? 4. Total number of VISTA Volunteers requested: 3 Yes   No If 'yes,' attach an explanation. Certification: The undersigned certify (1) that the filing of this application has been duly authorized by the governing body of the applicant organization\n(2) that if approved as a VISTA Sponsor, the organization agrees to assume responsibility in the community(ies)servedforfh6 development, implementation, and management of the VISTA Volunteer activities and the projects at which they serve\nand (3) that the organization accepts the obligation to comply with the statutes and regulations, policies, and the terms and conditions pertinent to this program. Note that falsification or concealment of a material fact, or submission of false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations to any department or agency of the United Slates Government may result in a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five (5) years, or both. (18 U. S. Code section 1001.) SIGNATURE OF ORGANIZATION/AGENCY DIRECTOR SIGNATURES: (Original sionatures in blue ink required) SIGNATURE OF GOVERNING BODY CHAIRPERSON (if applicable) DATE DATE AL 1 lUN Form A-i42i (10/90) Page 1SECTION 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (Answer all questions only in the space provided.) 1. Briefly describe the sponsoring organization's purpose and major program accomplishments\nexperience with the problems to be addressed by the VISTA Volunteers\nand experience in the use of local volunteers. In the past two years, the Education Committee of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce has recruited new business partners for schools, created media public service announcements, awarred teacher/student achievements, and supported district millage campaigns. Several members of the Education Committee are also members of the ADAD Task force, a coalition of central Arkansas organizations focusing on reducing youth-related problems of alcohol and drug abuse and school dropout by increasing parent involvement in schools. The ADAD Task Force has been meeting with the Little Rock School District, with local and national education experts, and with low-income community leaders to develop a comprehensive plan for improving parent involvement. The three public schools selected for the project have had extensive experience in use of local volunteers .parents) to support school activities. 2. Total Financial Resources of Sponsoring Organization CURRENT FUNDING L-EVEL SOURCE OF FUNDS: Federal Stale Local Government Other {Specify} Total Total Dollar Amount Amount Allocated to VISTA Project 2a. Are any of your resources presently provided by ACTION? If so, please specify name of program and funding level. 2b. Will there be a major change in your funding level over the next 12 months? If so, please explain. 3. Required sponsor documentation to be attached to Project Application. REQUIRED 3a. New Applications Copy of Articles of Incorporation Tax exempt status: either IRS determination or copy of application to IRS for exemption Organizational chart showing relationship of the VISTA project in the organization Specific Letters of Support lor the VISTA project List of current Board of Directors, showing their names, addresses, and organizational or community affiliations, indicating how many members represent the low-income population Nonprofit YES Public Agencies NO (If less than 51% of the Board of Directors represents the lov\n-income community, me sponsor must form a separate VISTA Advisory Council with at least 51% of the membership representing the low-income community.) Hesume oi the Director oi tne sponsoring agency or the polenliai project supervisor il nominated and jnh riescrintinn_____________________________________________________ 3b. Renewal Applications__________________________________________________ Resubmit any documents in item 3a if there is a change, including Articles of Incorporation____________________________________________________________ Updated letters of support (include letter from Board of Directors or VISTA Advisory Council on commitment ol future resources to VISTA project to aid in achieving self-sufficiency) Page 2 YES YES YES NO yes' yeIT YES YES YES YES YES NO YES yES, YES YESSECTION II. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS Problem No._____ (Answer all questions only in the space provided.) INSTRUCTIONS A problem is an unsatisfactor}'situation thatyour organizationplans tochange. For example: Sixtv- fivepercent of employable low-income youth ages 16-21 in Michael County have difficultyfinding jobs. For each problem you identify, complete a separate Problem Identification and Analysis (Section R), Project W'ork Plan (Section III), and VISTA Volunteer Assignment Description (Section IV). Make as many copies of these sections as you need. 1. Provide sn overview of the purpose of the VISTA project which includes\nOverall population statistics of the service area\npercentage of low-income people\nwhat VISTA Volunteers are requested to do\nhow the low-income community will benefit from the VISTA project. Volunteers will work with at-risk students and parents from Cloverdale Elementary, Henderson Junior High, and Fair High School, where at-risk students comprise between 33\nand 70, of total enrollment, (See ATTACHMENT A for'schocl cemocraphicsj. Volunteers will help parents take a more active role in their child's education at school and home. They will help parents understand how to better work with a school for their child's benefit. An increased personal motivation and community involvement will result. Low-income students who succeed academically offer positive role models. 2. State in quantifiable and measurable terms the specific problem the VISTA project will address, includino the number of low-income people directly affected by the problem. The project will address home-based problems such as lack of understanding of school procedures, parent apathy or . . . -- ----------KO cot OyCVIljT UI negative impressions of education, limited parenting skills, and poor relations between teachers and parents Schoolbased problems TO be addressed include time and resource limitations, teacher awareness of home issues and communication I skills in parent conferences. Virtually all of the at-risk students at the three schools are from low-income households. 3. If VISTA Volunteers will be assigned to organizations other than yours, list those organizations, and provide a letter of support from the Board of Directors of each organization. The Volunteers will be assigned to the three Little Rock public schools identified above. A letter of project support from the Little Rock School District is included in ATTACHMENT 8. 4. If other organizations are addressing the problem described in item 2, indicate any plans to coordinate the VISTA project with these organizations. The Little Rock School District and each school's Parent Teacher Organization are also addressing the problems stated in Item 2. Each school has developed a School improvement Plan with parent involvement strategies. The Volunteers will work with school principals, PTO officers, and community organizations, particularly ADAD Task Force members, to expand the resources and services for the project. (See ATTACHMENT C for list of ADAD members.) Page 3SECTION in. VISTA PROJECT WORK PLAN In this Section you arc asked to write a project work plan for VISTA Volunteers. The project work plan will cover a period of 12 months and should clearly state: (1) what is to be accomplished, (2) when it is to be accomplished, and (3) how it is to be accomplished. The work plan must be stated in guamifiable, measurable terms using a goals and objectives formal. INSTRUCTIONS Using the VISTA Project Work Plan format on page 4, submit a complete project work plan for each problem identified in Section II. Ps.eproduce as many copies of page 4 as necersary and identify them as pages 4b, 4c, etc. 1. In column A, list the proposed project goals and objectives which you expect the VISTA Volunteers to achieve in relation to the problem(s) identified in Section II. The last goal of the work plan(s) must demonstrate how you will actively elicit the support and/or participation of local public and private sector resources in order to enhance the chances of the projects success and continuance after the VISTA Volunteers leave. The goals and objectives should relate directly and only to the proposed project and work of the VISTA Volunteers within the context of your organizations total effort. GOALS are ends toward which VISTA resources are directed. They are broad in scope, up to 12 months in duration, and identify changes which will occur in the problem(s) identified in Section H. OBJECTn^ES are definite results (outcomes) leading to achievement of the related goals, and are stated in quantifiable, measurable terms. They are narrower in scope or short-term in duration. 2. In column B, indicate the quaner(s) during which the Volunteers will w'ork on, and achieve, the stated goals. 3. Complete column C when you submit the VIS i. A .Project Progress P\u0026lt;cport. SAMPLE ! SECTION III. VISTA PROJECT WORK PLAN ProbJem No. Column A For Period: FROM: MM DO YY TO: MM DO YY Column B Column C VISTA PROJECT GOALS ANO OBJECTIVES Planned Penod o1 Work and AccofTplishmenl ACTUAL VISTA PROJECT ACCOMPUSHMENTS (Complete this column subminir\u0026gt;j VISTA Pfojecl PtOQfess Ropon) Goal I: tc develop a job-readiness co' and raining program designed 0 assis iseli ng t 10 youth per month with placement in private sector jobs. Objective I: VIST.A Volunteers will i ar.G coordinate task force of 10-12 organize IsL Qtr. individuals from the sectors to design and public will use human and he overall program which financial resot ces from the community at large. Objective II: VISTA Volunteers will 20 local volunteers public awa reaciness pr nity centers eness i oaram cam\nc\narcs aces of areas where ticipate about th c school w o r s .h i recruit in a job- . commu- iG ether 2nd Otr. youth congregate. e Goal II: . Inst ructions for Page 4SECTION III. VISTA PROJECT WORK PLAN Pl ublem No. J- Column A Project period: October 1991 - September 1992 Quarters: 1. Oct.-Dec. 1991 2. Jan.-Mar. 1992 n 3. Apr.-June 1992 4. July-Sept 1992 Column C Column B VISTA PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Planned Period ol Work and Accomplishmont ACTUAL VISTA PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS (Complete this column when submitting ________VLSTAProicxl Progress Report)________ goal L Create better parent understanding of school procedures. OBJECTIVE I. Conduct home visits for family counseling on chronic absenteeism, suspension, and discipline problems. Follow up contact will be made after positive change. I - 4 XJ Co oProject period: October 1991 - September 1992 1 i I SECTION 111. VISTA PROJECT WORK PLAN Problem No. Column A Quarters: 1. Oct.-Dec. 1991 2. Jan.-Mar. 1992 Column B 3. Apr.-June 1992 4. July-Sept 1992 Column C VISTA PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Planned ' riod ol Work and Accomplishmont ACTUAL VISTA PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS (Complete this column when submitting ________VISTA PfQjeci PiQflifiss BemL-------------- GOAL 1. Overcome parent apathy to educational issues and negative impressions of school. OBJECTIVE 1. (Cloverdale only) Survey parents to help design Parent Center. 1 OBJECTIVE 2. Order materials S maintain Parent Center. 2 - 4 to crs OBJECTIVE 3. Make phone calls and conduct home visits to increase attendance at school open house. 4 OBJECTIVE 4. [Cloverdale only) Assist with Ist-day registration of new students. 4 GOAL 2. Increase parenting skills. OBJECTIVE 1. Provide family counseling on home study skills and learning environment. 1 OBJECTIVE 2. Assist parents in helping students prepare for MPT and HATE exams. 2 OBJECTIVE 3. Counsel parents on high school graduation requirements. 2 OBJECTIVE 4. Counsel parents in preparation for summer school. 3 OBJECTIVE 5. Counsel parents for entry of 6th graders to junior high and 9th graders to senior high. 4SECTION 111. VISTA PROJECT WORK PLAN Problem No. 3 Column A Project period: October 1991 - September 1992  ( 1 Quarters: 1. Oct.-Dec. 1991 2. Jan.-Mar. 1992 3. Apr.-June 1992 4. July-Sept 1992 Column C I Column B VISTA PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Planned Period ol Work and Accomplishment ACTUAL VISTA PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS (Complete this column when submitting yiSIAJroiscL Progress BeporU_ COAL L improve relations among parents. OBJECTIVE 1. Assist PTO projects S membership drives. 1 - 3 OBJECTIVE 2. Develop a parent peer network for counseling and support. 1 - 3 Ci) era fV Or SECTION III. VISTA PROJECT WORK PLAN Problem No. 4- Column A Project period\nOctober 1991 - September 1992 Quarters: 1. Oct.-Dec. 1991 2. Jan.-Mar. 1992 I  i 3. Apr.-June 1992 4. July-Sept 1992 Column C Column B VISTA PROJECT GOALS AMD OBJECTIVES Planned Period ol Work and Accomplishmont ACTUAL VISTA PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS (Complete this column when submitting --------------VISIA-Eroiect Progress Report)________ GOAL L Increase school outreach efforts. OBJECTIVE I. Compile list of identified at-risk families and build relations through home contact. I OBJECTIVE 2. (Fair only) Verify student address. 1 OBJECTIVE 3. XJ cm re O OBJECTIVE 4. OBJECTIVE 5. (Cloverdale only) Contribute to school newsletter. Survey parents for workshop topics. Establish student mentor and tutor programs. I - 3 2 2 - 3Project period\nOctober 1991 - September 1992 I SECTION 111. VISTA PROJECT WORK PLAN Problem No. i Quarters: 1. Oct.-Dec. 1991 2. Jan.-Mar. 1992 3. Apr.-June 1992 4. July-Sept 1992 4 i Column A Column B Column C VISTA PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Planned Period ol Work and Accomplishmont ACTUAL VISTA PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS (Complete this column when submitting ________VISTA Project Progress Reportl________ GOAL L Improve teacher understanding of home issues. OBJECTIVE I. Meet with teachers to gain recognition and support for liaison role. 1 GOAL 1. Improve teacher communication/relations with parents *0 era ft\u0026gt; rn OBJECTIVE I. Hotivate parents to volunteer at school through established VIPS (Volunteers in Public Schools) programs. 1 - 4 OBJECTIVE 2. (Cloverdale only) Assist with programs for parent socialization. 1 - 4 OBJECTIVE 3. Assist with parent teacher conferences. I - 2SECTION III. VISTA PROJECT WORK PLAN Problem No. (o Column A VISTA PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOAL i. Increase community support/interest in schools. OBJECTIVE 1. Locate student incentives and donations, resources for parent workshops. OBJECTIVE 2. Coordinate youth service with other agencies. Project period: October 1991 - September 1992 Quarters: 1. Oct.-Dec. 1991 2. Jan.-Mar. 1992 Column 3 Planned Period of Work and Accomplishment 3 - A 3 - A to crq Q T1 3. Apr.-June 1992 4. July-Sept 1992 Column C ACTUAL VISTA PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS (Complete this column when submitting ________VISTA Project Progress Report)________SECTION IV. VISTA VOLUNTEER ASSIGNMENT VISTA Volunteer assignments require a full-time, full-year commitment. VISTA Volunteers arc prohibited by law from engaging in any employment while in service. During the recruitment process, the sponsoring organization must discuss the sponsors responsibilities with the Volunteer as well as the terms and conditions of VISTA service. The VISTA Volunteer Assignment Description is used to recruit and inform potential volunteers about specific assignments to be performed in the VISTA project. Volunteers assigned to the project will use the Assignment Description as a major guide to follow in achieving the goals and objectives of the project. INSTRUCTIONS These instructions will help you to develop Volunteer Assignment Descriptions. Please note that you must complete a separate Assignment Description for each different Volunteer assignment (whether performed by one volunteer or a group of volunteers). Reproduce additional copies of the form on pages 5-6 as needed, identifying them as pages 5b- 6b\n5c-6c, etc. Each VISTA Volunteer Assignment Description must specifically relate to the Project Work Plan (Goals and Objectives). (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) and (2) Self-explanator\u0026gt;'. Indicate the geographic area(s) this assignment will serve (e.g., Washington and Waldo Couniies, southern Maine). Self-explanaiorj'. Describe ihc sponsoring organization, its purpose and programs, people serxcd, and ihc VISTA project. Briefly describe the problem to which this volunteer assignment relates. List the responsibilities (tasks and activiues) of the Volunteer(s) working under this assignment in achieving the objectives of the VISTA Project Work Plan. Describe the kinds of skills and qualifications needed by a potential Volunteer to accomplish the tasks/acii vities included in (hie Work Plari. If a Volunteer must have specific skills or credentials, list them\ne.g., must speak fiuent Spanish. Federal law requires that VISTA sponsors make reasonable accommodations to the needs of qualified disabled persons wishing to serve as VISTA Volunteers. Indicate any factors ACTION should be aware of when assigning disabled Volunteers to this project, such as availability of transportation and housing, accessibility of facilities, etc. NOTE: You must complete a separate assignment description for each different type of Volunteer assignment. When ACTION selects a VISTA Volunteer for this assignment, you must give the Volunteer a copy of this form for use at the ACTION pre-service orientation. SAMPLE SECTION IV. VISTA VOLUNTEER ASSIGNMENT ProbJfrm No._____ (Answer *11 questions only in the spsce provided) 7. Liat responsibilities (tsaka and activities) of the VISTA Volunteerfa) working urxier thia Aaaignrrwnt Description which relate to the objectives of the VISTA Project Work Plan The Volunteer tasks and activities i . to bring together individuals prograjt\nwill be: lore the private and public sectors fcr a one-day nesting on developing a jeb-readiness 8. 2 3 to carry out the reconnendations of the task force which should result in an ongoing program.* and to recruit and train convaunity volunteers to Iraplereent a public awareness campaign about the program, where youth congregate. Volunteers will plan and conduct croup cofwuunity meetlncs as necessary to carry out these duties. tJrqetinq areas These activities Involve buildinc and maintaininc relationships with youth scrvinc orcanizations, local businesses, and concerned residents. Liat eaaential VISTA Volunteer akille ar\u0026gt;d quatidcatioru. The preferred volunteer skills and gusllflcatlons are: 1. interest in working on the problem of employment fcr lew Income youth. 2 3 of the orcanixation: knowledge of and prior experience with individuals in the private and public seedtora.- and ability to coRvnunicate well verbally and in writing, and speak before small groups. well as convcitment to the overall coals An educator, counselor, would also be welcome. or individual who has wcrKlnc with youth prociaas is desirable. A retired business professional 9. Indicate any factors ACTION should be aware ol when assigning disabled Volunteers to this projecL ^ch as availability of truisportstion ar\u0026gt;d housing, \u0026gt;. accessibility of Iscitities, etc. Indicate whether services to be provided sre accessible to the dissbted members ol the community. I Instructions for Pages 5-61. SECTION IV. VISTA VOLUNTEER ASSIGNMENT Problem No. (Answer all questions only in the space provided.) Sponsor's Name Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce bor AC 1 ION Use Only Proj. No._____________________ Training Class No._____________ Training Start Date ____________ No. ACTION-Referred Vols. Skill Code 3. Geographic Area(s) of Volunteer assignment Little Rock, Arkansas 2. Location (City, Stale) Little Rock, Arkansas 4. Number of Volunteers required lor this assignment. 3 5. Briefly describe sponsoring organization and VISTA Project. Project sponsor will be the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, toecific management and supervisory roles will be provided by members of the Chamber Education Committee. The Committee has engaged in various campaigns to support public schools. Recent educational support provided by the Committee includes\n' ' I. Ifillage campaigns: phone banks and community-wide promotion to gain voter support for school district millage increases. 2. Business partners: linkage of schools with new business partners to provide requested services and counseling. 3. Public service ads: television public service ads were created and broadcast to promote community support of schools. Print materials were distributed to all Chamber members to be included in their advertising and public contact. . - A. Teacher recognition: An annual Teachers Rally highlights community appreciation of teachers. The VISTA project uses parent liaisons to help at-risk youth achieve academic success. The Volunteers will help the school and parents create a unified effort to assist the students. Volunteers wilT-help parents increase their awareness and skills in dealing with their child's school affairs. Volunteers will help schools by arranging for professional and logistical support to increase school efficiency in serving child and family needs. 6. Identify the problem(s) described in SECTION II to which assignment relates. The VISTA project relates to problems in three broad categories. I. Home-based problems common to low income families often negatively influence academic performance. The parents' lox educational attainment frequently leads to misunderstanding, apathy, or negative impressions of school and school- related involvements. As a result, children are deprived of the valuable home environment that supports their personal advancement in education. 2. School-based problems result from staff unfamiliar with the distinct communication and personal relations required for low income families, as well as limited school resources for improving these conditions. At-risk families generally do not initiate school involvement, so school staff have limited awareness of home issues. They also have little time to address that condition. As a result, parents are denied valuable input from dedicated teachers for their childrens' education. 3, Community-based problems result from lack of public awareness of home and school limitations, as well as low awareness of opportunities for directly applying community resources. Disenchanted by reports of school problems, potential community donors do not see a viable use of their input. As a result, available community resources are not being tapped. Page 5SECTION IV. VISTA VOLUNTEER ASSIGNMENT (Continued) Problem No. 7. List responsibilities (tasks and activities) of the VISTA Volunteer(s) working under this Assignment Description which relate to the objectives of the VISTA Project Work Plan in Section III. I The Volunteer tasks and activities will be to: 1. Identify and maintain contact with parents of at-risk students for counseling, training, motivating involvement, and gaining input for improved school services. 2. Establish programs to provide needed services to at-risK youth and families. 3. Coordinate community input for student and parent programs. 4. Create a school council of parents and staff. 5. fleet with teachers to communicate parent views. 8. List essential VISTA Volunteer skills and qualifications. Essential skills and qualifications of the Volunteer: I. Ability to relate to concerns for children and life style of low income parents. 2. Knowledge of school procedures, schedules, and program opportunities. 3. Ability to communicate well with people from all levels of society. 4. Ability to relate to the personal and professional aspects of teaching. 5. Enthusiasm for children and conviction that all children can learn and succeed in school. 6. Ability to find common ground in seemingly unrelated positions, to discover common channels by which untapped resources can be utilized. The ideal Volunteer would be a parent with public school experience, perhaps a former teacher. A Black, female Volunteer would have an advantage in gaining acceptance in low income single-parent households. 9. indicate any factors ACTION should be aware of when assigning disabled Volunteers to this project, such as availability of transportation and housing, accessibility of facilities, etc. Indicate whether services to be provided are accessible to the disabled members of the community. Disabled Volunteers with sight, hearing or speech impediments , . sight, hearing or speech impediments would add an unnecessary burden to the communication facet 0 e project. A wheelchair disability would find access unavailable in many homes. Other than these, no disabilities i would seem to interfere with a Volunteer's abilities. I have read the assignment description, and if selected, I agree to fulfill the duties and activities described above. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANTA'OLUNTEER Page 6 DATESECTION V. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN PROJECT (Answer all questions only in the space provided) INSTRUCTIONS ACTION legislauon requires that the low-income community to be served by VISTA Volunteers participate in planning, developing, and implementing the VISTA project. Your response to questions below must demonstrate how you plan to meet these requirements. ACTION legislation also requires the VISTA project to generate the commitment of private sector resources and volunteer service at the local level to carry out the purpose of the project. The sponsoring organization must plan for the eventual phase-out of VISTA Volunteers and for the performance of the Volunteers functions by local citizens. 1. Describe in specific terms how the low-income people the project proposes to serve are being included in the planning devel- opmeni, and implementation of the project In meetings conducted over the past year, input fro.m various organizations serving low-income people has been coordinated into the overall plan for parent involvement. Members of the ADAD Task Force have had provided the primary focus, helping to define overall project terms and scope. Specific project direction was provided by a core group of parents and staff from each of the three schools. Additional input for the project design was obtained from the following groups and individuals: - Black Ministerial Alliance - Annie Abrams, Parent Advisory Council, Little Rock School District - Delores Eggeston, state PTA Council - New Futures for Little Rock Youth - Principals from four restructured junior high schools - Superintendents and school board members from Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County Districts - Dr. Beverly White, Superintendent, Lee County Schools, and a group of Lee County educators and parents participating in a similar parent involvement project. For implementation of the project. Volunteers will meet regularly with the core group of parents and staff from the three schools, as well as families of the at-risk students identified at the schools. 2. What specific steps will the sponsor take to generate (a) the commitment of private sector resources and (b) the recruitment of volunteers from the community to help carry out the VISTA projects activities? (Attach letters of support from the public and/ proSV^' organizations that will be involved in supporting the VISTA projects efforts, indicating specific support to be (SeTAHACHiFjTTE pledged the resource support of their members'.' (see Al (ach.ilM B for letters of support). quarterly The AOAD Task Force has contributed significant assistance and having hosted meetings, provided meals. resources since the initial phase of the project, pre....,,., and cl,rl,.l ..ppi,\n\"*\"\" ' year. The District has further indicated it Page 7 fSECTION VI. VISTA PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT (Answer all questions only in the space provided) 1 i INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS This section is designed to assess your organization's ability tc manage and support the proposed VISTA project (1) Your organization is required to provide VISTA Volunteers with work facilities, supplies, materials, etc., for the operation of this project (2) Approximately 30 days prior to the start of the ACTION pre-service orientation, your organiz.ition will be required to submit a detailed on-the-job training plan to the ACTION State Office for approval. (3) You are also required to submit to the ACTION State Office individual career development plans for locally recruited low- income volunteers after they have been assigned. 1. Describe in specific terms how your organization will recruit qualified VISTA Volunteers to serve on the project. If you need ACTION recruitment assistance, please indicate what type. I Recruitment of Volunteers will initiate at the three schools. Principals, staff, and parents will be informed of the opportunity for Volunteers and will seek individuals to serve in that capacity. At the same time, the Little Rock School District will place public advertisements announcing the recruitment process. Initial screening of the applicants will be performed by each school's core group of parents, staff, and ADAD Steering Committee members. Secondary review of the applicants will be provided by the Little Rock School District. ACTION recruitment assistance is not anticipated. 2. Describe plans for the daily supervision of VISTA Volunteers. Specify whether supervision will be full-time, part- time, or delegated to other organizations where Volunteers will be assigned. Attach job descriplion(s) and' resume(s) of the person(s) who will have major responsibility for supervising the VISTA Volunteers assianed to this project. Supervision of Volunteers will be the responsibility of the three school principals and Karvin Schwartz, chairman of the ADAD Steering Committee. Because the Volunteers will be working out of the schools, principals will have daily contact and will arrange for logistical support (desk, phone, supplies) at the schools. On occasions when the school buildings are closed, the Volunteers will be provided work space by members of the sponsoring organizations (Chamber of Commerce, School District, ADAD organizations). As Project Supervisor, Karvin Schwartz will conduct regular review meetings with the Volunteers and school staffparent groups to assess project accomplishments and individual impressions. Supervisory meetings for the three Volunteers to come together and share project impress! will be scheduled on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. The meetings will be held at the schools or at a locetior provided oy the sponsoring organizations. Activities at each school will be communicated to all project members by the Project Supervisor who will serve as a coordinator and clearing house of information and resources. Resumes of the school principals and project supervisor are included in ATTACHMENT E. Page 83. SECTION Vi. VISTA PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT (Continued) Describe the on-the-job transportation needs ol the Volunteers and your plans for meeting those needs a. b. Geographic area in which Volunteers will have to travel: Estimated cost: (1) Private Vehicle: Estimated no. of miles per year square miles. X cents per mile = $ c. (2) Public Transportation: No. of Vols. X est. no. of trips Indicate how costs of on-the-job transportation will be covered. per trip = $ ^''*\"'\"'^'^'^l\u0026gt;'^^5ement will be provided by the schools through Academic Progress Incentive grants available through the Little Rock School district. 4. Describe your plans to recognize and publicize the project's accomplishments, includng-the work of the ViSTA Volunteers and support provided by community volunteers and the private sector. The individual publish regular newslett schools, the School District, the Cha.nber of Cominerce, and several members of the ADAO Task force ion is agreed on by all parties. assistance to the VISTA Volunteers as needed to carry out their assignments. On-the-job training for the Volunteers rnmmiffoH tn h . cu . . *'\" arranged prinari Iy by the ADAD Task force. Resources have been committed to host workshops and seminars in specific areas of at-risk ......ano semnars in specific areas of at-risk services and hone visits. National consultants in Srhnnrnt contacted for their availability. Similar projects in Arkansas, particularly in Lee and Perry County *' training models, and site visits or presentations will be arranged. futur!. Volunteers may be provided by having them audit training programs established for New managers. Less formal but highly valuable training will also be gained at the schools through contact with 1 teachers and parents. s through contact with with y of the ADAD Task Force, ti?.Jlw? n  supporting role. Cooperative assistance in this area is expected from the Little Rock School District. Page 9Note: 0MB Approval No. 03-4S-00-10 ASSURANCESNO.N-CO.NSTRUCTION PROGRA.MS Certain of these assurances may not be applicable to your project or program. If you have Questions, please contact the awarding agenew rurUier, certain Federal awarding agenciesmay reouircapplicants tocenify to addttior.cl assura.nccs. If such is lhcca.se,you will benoiified. As the duly authorized representative of the applicant, I certify that the applicant: 1. Has ihc legal auihorily lo apply for Federal assisiancc, and Oic insiiiuiional, managerial and financial capability (including funds sufficieni lo pay ihe non-FcderaJ share of project costs) to ensure proper planning, ntanagcmenl and 7324-7328) which limit ehc political aciiviiics of employees whose and compleiion of ihe project described in this application. 2. Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller General of the United States. principal employment activities arc funded in whole or tn part with Federal funds. 9. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon .Act (40 3. 4. 5. 6. and if appropriate, the Stale, through any authorized rcprcseniaiive, access 10 and ihe right lo examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the award\nand will establish a proper accounting system in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards or agency directives. Will csublish safeguards loprohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose ihat consiiiuics orprcscnisihc appearance of personal ororganiza- lional conflict of inicrcsl, or personal gain. Will initiate and complete the work within ihe applicable time frame after receipt of approval of ihe awarding agency. Will comply with the Intcrgovcmmcnul Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.  472S-4763) relating lo prescribed standards for merit systems for programs fended ur:der one of the ninciecn suiees or regulations spirified tn Appendix A of OPMs Standards for a Merit System of Personnel Admini- siraiion (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpan F). Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. These in elude but arc not limited to: (a) Tide VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. S8-352) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin\n(b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C.  1681-1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on thebasis of sex\n(c) Section 504 of liicRchabiljtation Act of 1973. as amended U.S.C 276aand276a-7),i)icCopeland Aci(40U.S.C. 275cand lEL'.S C.  874). and the Coniracl Work Hours and Safety Sund.'irds Aa (40 U.S.C. 327-333), regarding labor standards for federally assisted construction sub- agreements. 10. 11. 8. (29 U.S.C.  794), which prohibits discrimi,nation on Ihc basis of handicaps\n(d) the Age Discri.minaiion Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C.  6101- 6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age\n(e) the Dnig Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P,L.. 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse\n(f) the Comp.rehensivc Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-616). as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism\n(g)  523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 290dd-3 and 290ee-3}, as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records\n(h) Title VIII of the Civil Righis Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.  3601 ct scq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing\n(i) any oher nondiscrimination provisions in the specific siaiute(s) under which application for Federal assistance is being made\nand (j) the requirements of any other nondiscrimination siaiuie(s) which may apply lo ihe application. ill comply, or has already complied, with ihc requirements of Titles II and in of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Pi. 91-646) which provide for fair and equitable ireaimcni of persons displaced or whose property is acquired as a result of Federal or federally assisted programs. These requirements apply to all interests in real property acquired for project purposes regardless of Federal participation in purchases. Will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 150M508 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICIAL APPLICANT ORGANIZATION Vi ill comply, if applicabl',\n, with flood insurance purchase reQuirc.menis cf Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Aa of 1973 (P.L. 93- which requires recipients in a special flood hazard area to participi program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost ol insurable consiruc- lion and acquisiuon is 510,000 or more. in the ill comply with environmental standards which may be prescribed pursuant to die following\n(a) insiiiuiion of environmenul quality control measures under the National Environmenul Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and Execudve Order (EO) 11514\nfo' r.odficaiior. of violating facilities pu:sua.nt lo EO 1 1738\n(c) proicciion of wetlands pursuant lo EO 11990\n(d) evaluation of flood hazards in floodplains in accordance with EO 11988\n(e) assurance of projea consistency with the approved Slate managemenl program developed under Ihc Coastal Zone Management Aa of 1972(16U.S.C  1451 el seq.)\n(f) conformity of Federal actions to Sute (Cli , lean Air) Impltmcnuiion Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1955. as amended (42 U.S.C.  7*O1 el seq.)\n(g) prbicction of underground sources of drinking water under Ihe Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended (P.L. 93-523)\nand thi protection of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (P.L. 93-205). Will comply wiih the Wild and Scenic Rivers Aa of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 el scq.) related lo proicciing components or poienda! componcnis of the national wild and scenic rivers system. V\u0026gt; ill assist the a warding agency in assuring compliance with Scciio.n 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), EO 11593 (identification and protection of historic propenies), and the .Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469a-l el see.). Will comply with P.L. 93-348 regarding the p.'-oleciion of human subjects involved in research, development, E.nd related activities supported bv this award of assistance. Will comply with the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (P.L. 9-5a,. as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2131 ct scq.) pertaining to the care, handling, and irc-imcnl of warm blooded animals held for research, teaching, or cihe,' activities supported by this award of assistance. Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C.  4801 cl scq.) which prohibits the use of lead-based paint in construction or rehabilitation of residential siruciures. Will cause to be performed the required financial and compliance audits it. accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984. \\\\ ill comply with all applicable requirements of all ouher Federal laws, executive orders, regulations and policies governing this program. TITLE DATE SUBMITTED Page 10 Authorized for Local Reproduction Standard Form 424B (4-88) Prescribed by 0MB Circular A-102@501_324 2023 I.RSD COMMVNICATI ODM i_n.ov o I uotn i HbbibhM S' PAGi 002/003 02 04/26/98 i 18:12 Volunteers in Public ^hools NEWS RELEASE 11 i VOLLNIEJ^S IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS ANNOLINCES VOLUNTEER WARDS WINNERS April 25, 1996 J i I I ^Rfotmation, Debbie Milam at 324-229? fn) 663-7336 (h) contact I I Little Rock Volunteers in Public schools (VIPs) fourteenth annual district-wide volunteer hosted its \" An Evening for the recognition reception, Stars,\" Tuesday, April 23, four hundred people attended 1996. More than I Top awards for the event held at Ricks Armory. outstandirg school volunteer presented to .McClellan programs were Gibbs Magnet Elementary School. High School, Man.n Magnet unior High and moat improved volunteer The award for rhe school with the hours went to Romine Elementary School, that compiled ten A \"10 plus\" award or more Western I Hills, McDermott, Fulbright, otter Creek, A special founder, Interdistrict Was presented to nine schools volunteer hours per student: King, Cloverdale Elementary, Rightsell, Baselir.t\nand Carver Magnet. award established by viPS in honor of the Jane Mendel program's f was pre:sented volunteer in to the District eiilie Rutherford, a for thirteen nerved on four PTAs, the years Rutherford has committees. in addition VXFS board of Directors and other District to leading fundraising drives and bute Rnck Schoo\nDistrict  501 Sherman Street  Little Rock, AR 72202 (501) 324^2290 I i 04/26/96 18:13 501 324 2023 LRSD COmiUMCATI \u0026gt; ' \u0026gt; ODM JI Ji 1 I Hoo i f-'AtS 003/003 03 I recruiting parents for Littl I e Rock public schools. j Sixcellence in School/Business Partnerships Ttiompeon Books and awards went to Ei:eiBentary School and Downtown wi^ Hall High School, Supply for their partnership with Jefferson Rotary #99 for their part.nership Other award winners were John Sykes, Henry Riinbert, Kedia Award\nChaplain Clergy Volunteer Award\nsupport Volunteer Award\nFran Holmes, Leadership Men of Dunbar, Otis Preslar, Principal Award\nMentor Volunteer Award\nCoJ Resource Volunteer Janet Lofton of Coca Cola Bottling Award\nNorma and William Perry, Volunteer Award\nSchool Cynthia fast, School Volunteer Award\nLucy secrexiaty Volunteer Award and Beth Seller, school staff Volunteer Award. I ! Ehcertaxnnent was provided hv rbci \u0026gt; v , piovioea Dy the Bone Age band and the Gibes I Folk Dance Club. Those attending bid a 8ii4nt auction held to on ever 80 items offered in raise funds to support VIPS,\nVIPS was founded in 1972 to assist teachers and other members of the Little staff voluntieerism. i Rock School D VIPS serves as trict by promoting school a link between the District aijd the community While providing patron,, and oitirene an. opportunity tc ba Significantly involved in the education of children. 7/92,3 people documented last year, volunteer the Little Rock School District. service valued at $2,088,sis to 3 0VIPS Volunteer Training Schedule for 1991-92 OCT 2 8 1591 August 8 13 14 20 20 20 20 27 Franklin faculty and other new relations Shepherd Center Office of Desegregafion Monitoring incentive teachers on parent Teresa Willem re: organizing a tutoring program at Pulaski Elem. Shepherd Center Recipes for Home Learning, tutoring workshop - McClellan Susan Mauney re: volunteers for special education students Wakefield volunteers re: beginning a tutoring program Shepherd Center September 5 6 9 10 12 12 16 16 17 20 24 25 26 27 VIPS Chairperson orientation Orientation for new VIPS board members Teresa Willem re: tutoring program at Pulaski El Shepherd Center em. Pleasant Hills Retirement Center Wakefield faculty on involving volunteers Shepherd Center Wakefield faculty on involving volunteers - part two VIPS Chairperson orientation Individual training for Meadowci iff's VIPS chairperson Recipes for Home Learning, tutoring workshop, McClellan Recipes for Home Learning, McDermott volunteers Individual training for Mabelvale Jr. High's VIPS chairperson Tn di strict training for business partners October 1 1 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 11 15 15 18 19 22 28 29 Shepherd Center Wonders of Work orientation at Baseline Western Hills faculty on involving volunteers through Partners in Education Shepherd Center Wonders of Work orientation at Bale Wonders of Work orientation at Wakefield Mabelvale Elementary - Julie Davenport, principal, and Susan Myers VIPS chair  Wonders of Work orientation at Woodruff VIPS morning at Watson **staff training on involving volunteers Tridistrict training for business partners Shepherd Center Early childhood parent workshop at Rockefeller Mabelvale Elem. faculty on involving volunteers Volunteer training for Mt. Pleasant Church members Shepherd Center Incentive school parent workshop on \"Building Your Parenting Skills\" at Franklin School Shepherd Center November 5 9 Shepherd Center volunteers Incentive school parent conference ITEL: Nov 27,91 15:43 No.001 P.Ol MMiaWDW To: From: Connie Hickman, Office of Desegregation and Monitoring Valerie Hudson, VIPS Incentive School Coordinator Date: November 27, 1991 Subject: Nuirber of Incentive School Volunteers and Hours of Service From August 1991, Through October, 1991. School / Volunteers / Hours 50 97.50 v/darland 41 210.30 i/ish 60 436.50 ^/iiitchell v/Rightsell 52 65 228.30 239.95 \\/Ttockefeller V'^Stephens 103 64 348.71 200.68 Total= 435 1,761.94 oc: Debbie Milam, Coordinator, Volunteers in Public Schools, Partners in Education. James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Monitoring and Community Services.Little Rock School District Volunteers in Public Schools 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Nonprofit Organization U. S. POSTAGE PAID Little Rock. AR Permit No. 2608 Office/Desegregation Monitoring Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Annual Report 1991-92 RECEIVE?? Volunteers in Public Schools OCT 2 1 1952 and Office of Desegregation Monitoring Partners in Education Little Rock School DistrictIntroduction Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) and Partners in Education (PIE) are community involvement programs of the Little Rock School District, providing volunteer services to the District's 50 schools, serving more than 1,800 staff members and more than 26,6(X) students. Volunteers in Public Schools, founded in 1972, is a general citizen involvement program. The program's mission is to provide assistance to the teachers and staff of the Little Rock School District by recruiting, training and coordinating volunteers in all District schools. VIPS's motto is \"Helping Teachers Help Kids.\" Partners in Education facilitates the development of mutually beneficial voluntary relationships between schools and conamunity groups, organizations or businesses. Partnerships supjxirt and enhance the educational programs of the District and strengthen the relationship between the District and the community. Both programs are managed by a staff which includes a program coordinator, two school volunteer coordinators, a resource coordinator. Partners in Education manager, office manager and resource secretary. Volunteers in Public Schools As a joint project of the Little Rock School District and the community, VIPS is governed by a Board of Directors which includes representatives from the following groups: American Association of University Women, Board of Realtors, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Greater Little Rock Optimist Club, Leadership Roundtable, League of Women Voters, Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, Little Rock Junior Chamber of Commerce, Little Rock PTA Council, Little Rock School Board of Directors, Junior League of Little Rock, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Operation PUSH-Excel, Principals' Roundtable, Pulaski County Medical Society Auxiliary, Retired Senior Volunteer Program of Central Arkansas (RSVP), Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and Urban League of Arkansas. Twelve members-at-large also serve on the Board. VIPS provides guidance and assistance with volunteer and staff training, activity and career days, shadowing programs, mentoring, cross- and peer-age tutoring programs, enrichment programs, English as a second language, international visitors, scheduling field trips and writing grants for innovative programs. Partners in Education Activities provided by businesses involved as Partners in Education include incentive programs to reward improvement in grades and/or attendance, school grounds beautification projects, career awareness programs, job shadowing, homework centers and self-esteem training classes. Schools return the generosity of their partners through a variety of activities which include holiday musical presentations, art displays, pen pal programs, appreciation events and sharing school facilities. Affiliations VIPS and Partners in Education are active in a number of organizations and through them work to improve school volunteerism. Professional affiliations include the National Association of Partners in Education, International Association for Volunteer Administration, Arkansas Volunteer Coordinators Association, Arkansas Division of Volunteerism, United Way/Youth Connection, Greater LittleRock Chamber of Commerce, Future Little Rock Educational Task Force, New Futures for Little Rock Youth, Cornerstone Project, Little Rock PTA Council, and the Certified Volunteer Management program of the Arkansas Public Administration Consortium. The information gained through organizational networking refines our services so that VIPS and PIE remain on the cutting edge of school volunteerism. Recognition Volunteers are recognized through the VIPS Chairperson Luncheon, individual school appreciation functions and the annual Evening For the Stars Reception, a districtwide volunteer recognition event. The Jane Mendel Award for Outstanding Volunteer Service was presented to Diane Vibhakar, 1991, and Debbie Glasgow, 1992. Financial VIPS is funded by contributions from individuals, businesses, civic and social organizations and the Little Rock School District. Historically the District has provided staff salaries and office space and the VIPS Board of Directors raised the operating funds from the community. The District began contributing funds to the operating budget during the 1991-92 school year. VIPS Operating Budget 1990-91 1991-92 School District Funds Community Contributions -NA- $11,160 $16,898 $ 5,323 Partners in Education is funded by the Little Rock School District witha 1990-91 operating budget of $3,659 and 1991-92 operating budget of $4,602. Highlights Wonders of Work (WOW) VIPS and Junior League of Little Rock combined efforts during the 1991-92 school year to implement WOW, a career awareness program for sixth-grade students. WOW matches 27 students a semester with professionals in the community for four visits, which include job shadowing and a class presentation. Mentoring VIPS implemented a mentoring program in the seven incentive schools during the 1991-92 school year. Sixty mentors were matched with students for weekly school visits where mentors and mentees talked and shared with one another. The year concluded with a districtwide picnic for those involved in the program. Senior Volunteers from retirement centers in the Little Rock metropolitan area are contributing hundreds of volunteer service hours by making learning activities, tutoring and assisting with bulk mailings. Reading is FUNdamental (RIF) Reading is FUNdamental to Arkansas' Future (RIF) encourages reading and reading comprehension by letting children choose three books to take home and keep at no cost to the students or their families. The program is administered by VIPS through a Student Loan Marketing Association challenge grant with financial and volunteer time contributions from Friends of Central Arkansas Library System (FOCAL), Pulaski Heights Kiwanis, Central Little Rock Kiwanis and West Little Rock Kiwanis clubs. During the 1991-92 school year, 5,826 books were distributed among 1,942 fourth-grade students in all Little Rock School District elementary schools. Value of Volunteer Services Program volunteers serve at a school or other educational site on a regular, repeating basis, providing direct assistance to students and teachers on a wide variety of general support services. Resource volunteers visit classes on an occasional basis to make presentations about their jobs, hobbies, skills, travels, special interests or experiences. Partners in Education volunteers serve as either program or resource volunteers, providing diverse services to schools through their commitment to partnership or special projects. 1990-91 1991-92 Hours served by program volunteers Hours served by resource volunteers Hours served by partner volunteers Resource volunteers on file Registered field trip sites Individual teacher requests filled Resource volunteer/student contacts (some instances, the same students having contact with more than one resource volunteer during the school year) Number of Partnerships 82,350 972 4,694 989 no 570 29,037 93,610 1,018 11,830 1,002 no 619 28,189 97 102 Total number of volunteers Total hours of volunteer service Cost benefit of volunteer service (at $10.70 per hour, an average nationwide figure in educational fields as suggested by the National Association of Partners in Education, the Arkansas Division of Volunteerism and ACTION, the national volunteer agency) 5,440 88,016 $941,761 5,869 106,458 $1,139,101 Looking Ahead September 1992 Volunteer Month in Arkansas April 18-24,1993 National Volunteer Week April 20,1993 An Evening for the Stars May 7,1993 National School Volunteer Day i/OLJUHieERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1992-93 MOrJlHLY VOLUNTEER HOURS BY SCHOOLS SCHOCH. Cen sal J.A. Fair Hal McClellan Parkview Meropolitan Clovefdate Dunfeaf Fcxesi Heights Henderson MabeMale Mann Puiaiski Heights Southwest Badgett Bale Baseline Boelter Brady Carver Chi sol Clouerdate Dodd Fair Pauk Forest Park FranMin Fu'ori^rt Garland Geyer Springs GIUw Ish Jefetson MabehraJe McOermott Meadcwdifl Mtstiell OttBT Creek Ptilasld Heights Rifhtsel Rockereller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hits Wiliams Wison Warxirull totAl APR: 150.751 416.25' 46.00 454.00 179.50 41.00 46.75 1013.00 112.75 41.00 37.25 1S.00 71.50 647.50 76.50 591.25 265 00 208.25 76.50 232.50 372.50 262.75, 71.50 2256.00 164.00 21Z0O 147 00 154.75 251.75 99.00 54 00 226 75 207.00 559.75 118.00 94.75 377.50 \u0026amp;00 M^Y! ,'UN! 0 00 359.50 50.00 688 75 433.50 511.50 20 00 80.00 81.50 117.50 20.00 7650 9.25 677.50 330.25 293.00' 412.00 45.75 432.50 1021.50 375.00 82.25 156.00 337.50 22.00 168 25 539.50 85.25 0.00 0.00 11.00 700 0.00 58-50 0.00 4.50 7.75 12.75 806.75 74.25 0.00 1500 216.50 0.00 29.00 32.00 0.00 86.25 51Z75 358.00 19.00 JUL 0 00, 27.00 292.00! 23 00- 167.50 0.00 0.00 2.00 000 48 25 0.00 21.00 0.00 0.00 337.50 0.00 i AUG 186.50. 128 50 I39.O0I 14 25 311^ 10i25 0.00 63.50 0.00 45 00 168.00 23.25 0.00 000 44.75 70 00 298.25 130.25 39.25 4.75 140.00 49.00 0.00 26.50 50.00 000 14350 0.00 6.75 127.50 671.00 114 50 45.50 4.50 50 00 73 00 490 75 55.75 000 70.75 52.00 32.75 SEP 81.50 OCT 90.25 352.00. 227 251 1143.00! 21.00 21.00: 47900 0.00 0.00 186.00 182.00 4.00 14.00 0.00 80.00 426.75 656.25 411.25 169.75 214.50 33.75 326.50 14.25 951.50 46.00 40.75 1146.75 113.00 149.75 600.00 304 00 23.00 108.25 270.00 928.75 129.50 92.50 231 00 33 00 467.25. 1003 50 no 00 346.00 438.00 2900 188.501 ! 37.001 149 50 533.00 347.75 178.50 26.25 0.00 138.50 85.75 5.25 12325 36.25 82.50 592.00 1008.50 61900 418.75 126.00 17.00 583.50 61.75 720.75 26.00 8.50 363.25 158.00 264 00 412.75 529 75, 43.50 136.25 575.75 501.00 17950 198.50 190.25 123.00 452 50 141 25 1656.75 326.75 576.75 139.25 59.00 94.75 NOVi 723.00, 162.001 279.50- 50.50 444.00 102.75 351.251 0.00 10450 93.00 14.00 70.001 12.50 12.50' 395.251 838.50 203.50 22925 102.25 970.00 230.00 8\u0026amp;25 301 25 7.00 571.25 21850 431.00 240.75 238.75 109.75 369.25 633.50' 254,50 88 solos .50 66.75 222.75 567.00 377.00 84.75 104.50^ DEC\n14S.C0| 54.C0 12I7.C0 412.00 69.25 254.25 35.50 128. 185.30 33.-\u0026gt;5 44. \u0026gt;0 103.X\u0026gt; 34.30 33525 504J5 22825 98 JOO 76J5O 119 25 135 75 142 75 35 00 6000 146-25 270O. 186:00 152:00 14S50 1325 21025 347.25 66K25 14C.5O 8S.50 10E00 382.50 43S.S0 3S25 18^.75 53.00 5S0 JAN. 94 00' 321.50' 277.00 208.00 436.25 124.00 333.25 3a50 92.25 521.00 60.75 8.00 65.75 10.25 106.50 399.00 111.25 195.00 68.00 69.00 260.25 49.25 260.25 9.50 40.50 109.00 233.00 169.00 135.75 144.90 89.50 55.25 324.50 199.00 9300 67.00 57.50 31125 305.75 69.00 90.50' 55.00 7.50 93.00 FEB I 312.00' 509.501 204.501 982 00' 150.75 1.25 106.00 632.50 7.00 116.00 134.50 116.25 1084.50 62.00 25.00 310.50 423.75 268.75 8250 97.00 473.25 675 472 50 23.50 11.50 220.50 121.50 174.75 117.75 299.00 0.00 296.50 413.25 489.75 63.00 68.25 100.25 467.25 431.50 163.25' 143 25 94.751 4800 19.001 MAR 106.00 2191.75 516.50 326.00 120550 140.00 1311.25 171.00 20.50 722.00 134.00 109.25 2X50 91.25 8.50 568.50 816.00 197.00 86.00 49.25 286.50 632.90 37.00 191.00 131.00 232 00 188.25 37-00 127.50 404.00 962.00 63.50 30.50 140.75 99.25 493.50 405.75 79.00 134.00 186.00 47.00 TOTAL HOURS 1893.00 4170.00 3364.50 3479.50 5690.75 22.25 STUDENT 1924.00 861.00 990.00 93200 847.00 573.25 4453.75 410.50 318/ 2152.75 1679.25 909.25 1327.25 565.25 56.50 380.25 4144.50 78 50 6723.50 2210.50 2327 00 795.00 1497.25 3343 25 218.25 4875.50 495.75 232.75 274X00 3940.50 1656.50 2011.25 2736.25 211.25 1365.50 2986.25 5993.00 101850 785 25 753.SO 1029.75 3616.50 141.25 6030.75 1473.75 2305.00 1446.00 333.50 587 00 101562.00 87.00 HRS.' STUDENTI 0.98 4.84 340 3.73 6.72 TZ7J0O 764.00 850 00 653.00 648.00 771.00 710.00 201.00 311.00 341.00 594.00 402.00 592.00 532.00 361.00 312.00 252.00 435.00 409.00 542.00 243.00 292.00 336.00 173.00 491 00 503.00 522.00 454 00 266.00 351.00 389.00 247.00 377.00 360.00 192.00 530.00 515.00 802.00 470.00 348.00 491 00 356.00 232.00 26S2O.0O 0.08 0.75 6.44 0-54 037 3.30 1J96 1.18 1.37 2.81 0.18 1 12 6.96 0.20 11.36 4.16 6.45 2.55 5.94 7.69 0.53 9.00 204 080 8.18 22.78 3.37 4.00 524 0.47 5.13 8.51 1541 4.12 208 209 536 6.82 027 752 3.14 6-62 2.95 094 2j53 3.830TEL: Nov 12,93 12:51 No .013 P.02 f (\\(^ I -/^a^cks/ /X) ^*4, # 'jL I^Cei c\u0026gt;^  d'] 3^-y-S^ (3to yy^dL 7id^\u0026gt;^ 2^30FAX TRANSMITTAL MBl Volunteers m Public Schools 501 Sherman, Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone 324-2290 Date: Number of pages: \u0026lt;3 To: AlC- Company Department Fax# dTk 01 From: nA. Phone#Annual Report 1992-93 Volunteers in Public Schools and Partners in Education CiUbrating 20 years of tie tying teacfiers hetp l^ids!' Little Rock School District Volunteers in Public Schools 81OW. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Nonprofit Organization U. S. POSTAGE PAID Little Rock, AR Permit No. 2608Introduction Volunteers in Public Schools Partners in Education Affiliations Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) and Partners in Education (PIE) are communi ty involvement programs of the Little Rock School District, providing volunteer services to the District's 51 schools, serving more than 1,800 staff members and more than 26,600 students. Volunteers in Public Schools, founded in 1972, is a general citizen involvement program. The program's mission is to provide assistance to the teachers and staff of the Little Rock School District by recruiting, training and coordinating volunteers in all District schools. VIPS's motto is \"Helping Teachers Help Kids.\" Partners in Education facilitates the development of mutually beneficial voluntary relationships between schools and community groups, organizations or businesses. Partnerships support and enhance the educational programs of the District and strengthen the relationship between the District and the community. Both programs are managed by a staff which includes a program coordinator, two school volunteer coordinators, a resource coordinator. Partners in Education manager, office manager and resource secretary. As a joint project of the Little Rock School District and the community, VIPS is governed by a Board of Directors which includes representatives from the following groups: American Association of University Women, Board of Realtors, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Greater Little Rock Optimist Club, Leadership Round table. League of Women Voters, Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, Little Rock Junior Chamber of Commerce, Little Rock PTA Council, Little Rock School Board of Directors, Junior League of Little Rock, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Operation PUSH-Excel, Principals' Roundtable, Retired Senior Volunteer Program of Central Arkansas (RSVP), Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and Urban League of Arkansas. Twelve members-at-large also serve on the Board. VIPS provides guidance and assistance with volunteer and staff training, activity and career days, shadowing programs, mentoring, cross- and peer-age tutoring programs, enrichment programs, English as a second language, international visitors, scheduling field trips and writing grants for innovative programs. Activities provided by businesses involved as Partners in Education include incentive programs to reward improvement in grades and/or attendance, school grounds beautification projects, career awareness programs, job shadowing, homework centers and self-esteem training classes. Schools return the generosity of their partners through a variety of activities which include holiday musical presentations, art displays, pen pal programs, appreciation events and sharing school facilities. VIPS and Partners in Education are active in a number of organizations and through them work to improve school volunteerism. Professional affiliations include the National Association of Partners in Education, International Association for Volunteer Administration, Arkansas Volunteer Coordinators Association, Arkansas Division of Volunteerism, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce,Future Little Rock Educational Task Force, New Futures for Little Rock Youth, Cornerstone Project, Little Rock PTA Council, and the Certified Volunteer Management program of the Arkansas Public Administration Consortium. The information gained through organizational networking refines our services so that VIPS and PIE remain on the cutting edge of school volunteerism. Recognition Financial Volunteers are recognized through the VIPS Chairperson Luncheon, individual school appreciation functions and the annual Evening For the Stars reception, a districtwide volunteer recognition event. VIPS is funded by contributions from individuals, businesses, civic and social organizations and the Little Rock School District. VIPS Operating Budget 1992-93 School District Funds Community Contributions $14,971.60 $ 6,401.50 Partners in Education is funded by the Little Rock School District with a 1992- 93 operating budget of $3,728.40. Highlights Wonders of Work (WOW) VIPS and Junior League of Little Rock combined efforts during the 1992-93 school year to continue WOW, a career awareness program for sixth-grade students, for a second year. WOW matched 27 students a semester with professionals in the community for four visits, which included job shadowing and a class presentation. Mentoring VIPS implemented a mentoring program in the seven incentive schools during the 1991-92 school year. Sixty mentors volunteered the first year\n105 were matched during the 1992-93 school year with students for weekly school visits where mentors and mentees talked and shared with one another. The year concluded with a districtwide picnic for those involved in the program. Senior Volunteers from retirement centers in the Little Rock metropolitan area are contributing hundreds of volunteer service hours by making learning activities, tutoring students and assisting with bulk mailings. Reading is FUNdamental (RIF) Reading is FUNdamental to Arkansas' Future (RIF) encourages reading and reading comprehension by letting children choose three books to take home and keep at no cost to the students or their families. The program was administered by VIPS through a Student Loan Marketing Association challenge grant with financial and volunteer time contributions from Friends of Central Arkansas Library System (FOCAL), Pulaski Heights Kiwanis, Central Little Rock Kiwanis and Wtst Little Rock Kiwanisclubs. During the 1992-93 school year, 7,564 books were distributed among 1,891 fourth-grade students in all Little Rock School District elementary schools.Awards The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) was the Education Winner of the 1993 Golden Rule Award, sponsored by United Way of Pulaski County and J. C. Penney. VIPS nominated DHS for the award in honor of the partnership DHS has with Bale Elementary School. Their partnership activities include the \"Buddy Club,\" a mentoring program\nclassroom presentations\na book drive that resulted in 100 books being donated to the school library\nand job shadowing. Al Porter, longtime VIPS board member, was selectd as United Way of Pulaski County's Volunteer of the Week for the week of May 10-15, 1993. Discount Trophies donated a plaque for Porter, which was presented to him at the May 10 VIPS Board of Directors Executive Committee. Awards for volunteer service to the Little Rock School District were presented during the annual VIPS Evening for the Stars reception. The Jane Mendel Award for Outstanding Volunteer Service was presented to Betty Ruth Davis. Parkview Arts and Science Magnet, Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet and Ish Incentive School received awards for most volunteer hours per students during the 1992-93 school year. Pulaski Heights Elementary, runner-up for most volunteer hours per student, and Carver Basic Skills-Math/Science Magnet, having the most overall volunteer hours districtwide, were also recognized. Excellence in School/Business Partnerships awards were presented to Twin City Bank - Heights Branch for their partnership with Forest Park Elementary, Unitarian Universalist Church for their partnership with Garland Incentive School and Storer Cable for their partnership with Western Hills Elementary School. Value of Volunteer Services Program volunteers serve at a school or other educational site on a regular, repeating basis, providing direct assistance to students and teachers on a wide variety of general support services. Resource volunteers visit classes on an occasional basis to make presentations about their jobs, hobbies, skills, travels, special interests or expieriences. Partners in Education volunteers serve as either program or resource volunteers, providing diverse services to schools through their commitment to partnership or special projects. Hours served by program volunteers Hours served by resource volunteers Hours served by partner volunteers Resource volunteers on file Registered field trip sites Individual teacher requests filled Resource volunteer/student contacts (This figure includes, in some instances, the same students having contact with more than one resource volunteer during the school year) Number of Partnerships Total number of volunteers Total hours of volunteer service Cost benefit of volunteer service (at $11.58 per hour, an average nationwide figure in educational fields as suggested by the National Association of Partners in Education, the Arkansas Division of Volunteerism and ACTION, the national volunteer agency) 116,256.50 1,010.00 14,034.00 883 no 759 23,496 Ill 7^41 131300.50 $1320,459.79II    ' u'.. w . I. 11. III. / WHAT VIPS IS DOING WHAT VIPS IS ASKING APPENDICES A. 1980 Evaluation Results B. C. D. [ Responsibilities of Coordinator and Assistant Coordinator Responsibilities of Resource Clerk Responsibilities of Secretary I  5 y J l] Md n II 1 WHAT VIPS IS DOING \"VIPS helps teachers help kids. l\u0026gt; VIPS operates in all 39 district schools. Resource volunteers are scheduled by our resource clerk to go out to schools and speak on travel\u0026gt; hobbies, careers, etc. Regular volunteers are assigned for tutoring math, English, reading, or running enrichment programs, as well as working in libraries school offices, and filling in where needed. health rooms, One month might produce 5,500 volunteer hours served, people working full timet This equals BS Romine Primary School reports 30 of their staff helped by regular vol- unteers. Fifteen of Washington's teachers have used resource volunteers thi year with 30 at Hal 1. resource volunteers. All of the teachers at Forest Heights report using Bale reports 10 teachers using reading tutors. Three teachers at Forest Park have lost aides who have been partially replfiKod by volunteers. Five teachers at Jefferson have math tutors. Twenty-five our volunteers. workshops have been scheduled this year to train and enrich To quote our evaluations of a February lb reading workshop: \"It's heartening and encouraging to see kittle Rock Public Schools providing this kind of training. . . .to volunteers, and the recognition and outreach to children with learning difficulties. II \"I v/as surprised at the organization It takes to enable volunteers to get so much done.\" \"I got a sense of the importance of what VIPS do.\"I t*? *' X jlii I ! vjhat vjps is asking p I s vital i\no VIPS is asking to be recognized by the Board of Directors a helping teachers help kids. I A paid staff is essential for maintaining our already well-established 'J program. Our goals for expansion concentrate on recruitment, of more volun- teers, with our greatest hope in the liirie-Belease program. Operational funds for this and all of our functions come from the community, VIPS has not been able to recruit full time volunteers to work in the Fl office. A well-organized, effective program requires full-time leadership with the time and talent to devote to the project. The volunteer market has become very competitive due to the large majority of parents working. We must work hard to meet the competition. VIPS v/ould ask the Board of Directors to talk to children, talk to volun- teers, talk to teachers. (Our evaluation from last year is enclosed.) We see repeatedly how people who volunteer come around to being 100% public school supporters. Repeatedly, white-return-flights have been due to favorable reports from volunteers in our schools. We feel we help all of us. UtWa-lUW-IW LUM U-IIJW 1.JI-U-III. 1 I I I I I I a 1 5 I !TEL : Nov 05,92 14:52 Nc .C02 P.Ol Pre-professional students from UAl.R and Philander Smith college were assigned to teachers, providing 3,744 hours of classroom assistance in t: fall Of 1980. They are also placed this spring. Activity Days and Career Days consultation is provided by the VIPS office. Prior to a reduction in staff, VIPS handled this big job for the schools. Now we work closely with volunteers or staff from the schools who come to use our resource file and direction. Our Board of Directors is very interested in helping fill any gaps in VIPS services. We have had difficulty placing a VIPS Chairman at Mann. Two of our Board members, Charles Stewart and David Walters, graduates of Mann, are \"Board Buddies\" to Mann and served as VIPS Chairmen through the accomplishment of their Career Days this year. Board Buddies are Board members who have selected a school in which to support and work closely with the VIPS Chairman. Field Trips are scheduled and confirmed by the VIPS re ource clerk. This job along with scheduling resource speakers saves the teachers an enormous amount of time otherwise spent at the telephone. English as a Second Language - sec attached summary Work Release Time - see attached summarySi' I I Pre\u0026gt;profess1ona\\ students from UALR and Philander Smith college were assigned to teachers providing 3,744 hours of classroom assistance s I in th fall of 1980. They are also placed this spring. Career Pays consultation is provided by the VIPS office. Prior to a reduction in staff, VIPS handled this big job for the schools. Now we work closely with volunteers or staff from the schools who come to use our resource file and direction. Our LJoard of Directors is very interested in helping fill any gaps in V1P$ services. We have had difficulty placing a VIPS Chairman at Mann. Two of our Board members. Charles Stewart and David Walters, graduates of Mann, are \"Board Buddies\" to Mann and served as VIPS Chairmen through the accomplishment of their Career Days this year. Board Buddies are Board members who have selected a school in which to support and work closely with the VIPS Chairman. Field Trips are scheduled and confirmed by the VIPS resource clerk. This job along with scheduling resource speakers aves the teachers' an enormous amount of time otherwise spent at the telephone. English as a Second Language - see attached summary attach nri r 11 nun 3 v* I z ttlAv'l/ DaIimta T i inAKVOLUNTEER NeWS Volunteers in Public Schools, Little Rock, Arkansas Fall 1992 Harrison Elected VIPS Board President Discover your school- Dr. Gayle Harrison ha.s been elected president of the VIPS Board of Directors for the 1992-93 school year. Harrison is a native of Massachusetts and earned a doctorate in de-velopmental/ educational psychology from Boston College. She is in private practice with Arkansas Psychological Services. Harrison has served on the board of the Arkansas Psychological Association, Arkansans for Drug Free Youth and Committee on Women  s Concerns. Y Volunteer!^, She has been an active member of the VIPS Board for five years. Other elected officers for the 1992-93 school year include: Virgil Miller, First Vice President Debbie Glasgow, Second Vice President Phil Burch, Treasurer Martha Rimmer, Recording Secretary Delores Egeston, Corresponding Secretary. The 1992-93 VIPS Board is composed of representatives from 30 sponsoring organizations and 12 members-at-large. Board members are actively involved on committees including Public Relations/Commu-nity Involvement, Volunteer Recognition, Volunteer Program Development, Reading is FUNdamental (RIF), CTA, Personnel, Nominating, Bylaws and Silent Auction. The VIPS Board of Directors meets at 12:00 noon on the second Monday of each month in the LRSD board room. Meetings are open to the public. * * * * Ways Working People Can Help At School Saturday work parties: beautifying the school yard, building playground structures, planting shrubs or trees and painting murals. Resource volunteers: talking with classes about your work, travels or hobbies. * School newsletters: gathering news, editing, typing or pasting up. Mentoring a student: spending one lunch hour per week visiting with a student to encourage and support good behavior. Field trips: having students visit your workplace for hands on experience. * PTA: attending meetings and serving on a committee. * Typing: PTA newsletters, general school notes, proposals and reports. * Asking friends, relatives or total strangers to volunteers: all of us can be recruiters of volunteers. * Making attendance calls: phoning the parents of students who miss school to make sure they are aware of the childs absence. 2 Volunteer News. Volunteers In Public Schools, Little Rock, Arkansas Fall 1992 20 Years Old and Worth A Million! VIPS was founded 20 years ago by a group of concerned citizens led by Jane Mendel. The program was designed as a partnershio between the community and the Little Rock School District, a relationship that has endured the years. After all, how could a school district have an active volunteer program without strong support from the community? Each of you is a member of a vital group of people interested in enhancing the education of children in the Little Rock School District. Last year, 5,869 volunteers worked 106,458 hours providing services worth $ 1,139,101 to the District. Yes, thats right, over one million dollars! Volunteerism in the LRSD is big business and crucial to the Districts long term success. Well be celebrating our twentieth anniversary through June. Help us make this year the best one yet. Were focusing a lot of energy on recruiting mentors and tutors to provide direct one-to-one services to students. Hundreds of volunteers are needed to spend one hour per week working with youngsters. Please consider renewing your commitment to VIPS by volunteering and/or recruiting volunteers, and join us for a fun-fdled year of rewarding work with children. You see, we really are 20 years old and worth a million! You hold a key to ensuring the future success of a child... Unlock the potential through mentoring! KEYS TO A SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL/BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP WITHIN THE SCHOOL * Gain support and participation of the administrative staff. * Encourage a school climate that reinforces staff for community involvement.  Designate a committed coordinator. * Get to know your business partner. * Accept the differences between education and business. * Identify business needs...give something in return for business resources. * Consider the individual business volun- Quotations from our Mentors Mentoring is: being a role model. giving students hope for the future. pouring a little of my life into a childs life.\" a positive plus for young people.\" a truly progressive move in the right direction.\" a chance to be of great help to a child who is in a period of transition. For more information on VIPS Incentive School Mentoring Program, call Valerie Hudson, VIPS Incentive School Coordinator, 324-2292. t*eer-they have needs too. Inventory school resources and determine how the school can best meet partner needs. * * * Focus on establishing relationships. Maintain a WIN/WIN attitude. Remember you are involved with the partner to enhance the education of youth. * Enjoy what you dohave fun with the partnership. VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS LITTLE RCX\nK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN, LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 324-2290 Purpose: To provide assistance to the teachers and staff of the Little Rock School District by recruiting, training and coordinating volunteers in all district schools. VIPS motto is \"Helping Teachers Help Kids.\" Dr. Gayle Harrison, VIPS Board President VIPS Staff Debbie Milam, VIPSiPartners in Education Coordinator Millicant Hearne, Partners in Education Manager Leia Hodges, Resource Secretary Valerie Hudson, Incentive Schools Coordinator Lee Ann Matson, Resource Coordinator Gayle Wilson, School Coordinator Anna Zawislak, Office Manager Anna Zawislak, Editor Did you know.. on October 31, 1945, Booker T. Washington was admitted to the Hall of Fame for Great Americans? Who Am I? 1 I. I am interested in quality education lor all children. 2. 1 work closely with my school PTA. 3. I like working with people and enjoy matching them with volunteer job.s that meet their needs. 4. I help teachers in my school decide how they can use volunteers and then 1 recruit volunteers for those tasks. 5. I value the roles parents and community play in educating children. Vnsci amhte for the answer: SPIV .MISKEPKIAHC (Answer on page 3} Fall 1992 Volunteer News, Volunteers In Public Schools, Little Rock, Arkansas 3 Tips For Teachers: Delegating Jobs To Volunteers 1. In two minutes make a written list of all things you do during the typical school day. 2. Now take two minutes to make a written list of all the things you would do in your classroom if you had more time. VO A 3. Take one minute to review both lists, putting a check by those tasks, activities or jobs you could delegate if you could find the right person. 4. Pick one checked item from either list, fill out a volunteer request form and turn it in to your schools VIPS chairperson. 5. Save the lists. When you have successfully delegated one job to a volunteer, you can ask the VIPS chairperson to help find someone for another checked item. In the meantime, remember: *Space is limited at many field trip sites. Call to make appointments now  even for the spring! *Watch the local media for coming events  imagine how a visit could enrich your curriculum. Call VIPS resource area (324-2291) for advice or help with arrangements. Great Books Program Training Opportunity The Great Books Foundation would like to hold a two-day training workshop for discussion leaders in Little Rock in October or November, If you are interested in being trained to lead a discussion group of students, please call Debbie Milam at 324- 2297 for information about program costs. The Foundation offers Great Books programs for all thirteen years of schooling\nthe new Junior Great Books Read-Aloud program for children in kindergarten and first grade. Junior Great Books for students in grades two through nine, and Introduction to Great Books for high school students. The program helps students learn to think independently about literature, to articulate ideas about its meaning and to enrich these ideas by considering opinions other than their own. VOLUNTEER COUPON I NO EXPIRATION DATE YES! I CAN VOLUNTEER GOOD FOR ONE (1) HOUR VOLUNTEER SERVICE TO A LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL Redeemable for a child's smile, a teacher's gratitude, a principal's relief and your community's thanks! Clip this coupon Hand-deiiver to your nearest LRSD school Redeem as volunteer service: J Who Am I? (answer) a tutoring  clerical help a nurse's aide  mentoring a speaUr oil pmfuiitiuns unravels  other . atBaMBBi -.........t................-----------. : : %wrjiW^-T., ' --------- 1 P) - Copies of this coupon will be honored No limit per household Volunteers in Public Schools, Little Rock School District 501 Sherman, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202, Phone 324-2290 I Youre right! I am your VIPS Chair- I person, the one who puts it all together. 1 I would like to help you find that volunteer ! position thats just right for you. Call your J school for more information. 4 Volunteer News, Volunteers In Public Schools, Little Rock, Arkansas Spring 1992 FIGHT BACK! INSURE THE CHILDREN Volunteer Opportunities *Mentor an elementary age student through a one-hour visit once per week at the school. * Mentor a pregnant teenager through New Futures for Little Rock Youths TEENS project, Teens Empowered with Effective Nurturing Skills. Little Rock Against Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse. * Assisi nurses with health screenings or by working in a health room or clinic. Eight Back! Insure The Children is a unique program which provides insurance coverage for every child in the Little Rock School District for treatment of problems arising from substance abuse. This program is the only one of its kind in the nation. This program is being offered at the cost of $12 per child for 100% coverage for four levels of substance abuse treatment. The cost of intensive private care for substance abuse treatment can range from $6,000 to $40,000 per child. Of those who have insurance, only 50% of Ihe cost is covered. The Insure the Children program guarantees 100% coverage for every child in the Little Rock School District. Students can be referred to the Little Rock School Districts assessment office by parents, teachers, counselors, other students, themselves or other concerned residents. Of the students referred for assessment during 1991-1992\n* 76 were in senior high school * 116 were in junior high school * 72 were in elementary school. Please send contributions to\nCity of Little Rock Fighting Back, City Hall, 500 West Markham, 120W, Little Rock, AR 72201 *Tutor students in reading, math or learning English as a second language. *lmprove students reading abilities and awareness of literature by leading a Junior Great Books discussion group. *Telt stories to students about what life was like when you were growing up. *Speak to classes about areas of interest to you\njobs, hobbies, travels, etc. For more information, call the VIPS office at 324-2292 or 324-2293. Looking October 19,1992 April 18-24,1993 Parent Conference Day National Volunteer Week Ahead... April 20,1993 An Evening for the Stars May 7,1993 National School Volunteer Day Little Rock School District Volunteers in Public Schools 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 BULK RATE U.S. Postage PAID Little Rock, AR Permit No.2608 o F Office/Deseg Monitoring Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 oct 2 2 Office of Desegresaiioh VlPS-\"Helping Teachers Help Kids\" VOLUNTEER NEWS is printed on recycled paper. Please recycle...share this with a friend.TEL: Nov 05,92 14:49 No.001 P.Ol JL til pages Post-lt\"' brand fax transmittal memo 7671 p Co OepI z72\u0026gt;X Go Phone F9X# ______ REPORT TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OP DIRECIORS Robert-L. Henry, III. President C. 0. Mtigee, Jr., Vice President Dr. Arthur W. Gillam. Secretary Mrs. Betty Herron T, E. Patterson Herbert C. Rule, Ill Dr. Peter T. Sherrill Submitted by the Staff of Little Rock Volunteers in Public Schools Tebruary 27, 1981TEL : Nov 05,92 L , 14:52 No .002 P.02 ] WWEBSflliEIN o o a o DG3 EDUCATION May 15, Mr, Herbert C, Rule, III President, Little Rock School Board c/o Rose, Nash, Law Associates MAY 21 19S1 720 W. Third trect SUPT. OFFICE Littlis Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Kr. RJle: Ab Exacutive Director of the National School Volunteer program, I am oft.nn called upon to speak in behalf of local school lunteer programs threatened ,,v budMvl As an ex-teacher in the Little Rock .Schools, 1 have good brLy sbound gteot bceu tsth.ankful for the dedicated support of certain community membara in 1965. Many of those VO same caring and responsible people are probably school volunteers today, letter. So I bring a special concern and urgency to tliis The Little Rock School Volunteer Program is recognwea, it has won prestigious national awards for its business/cducation partnerships But all of that pales in signa-prestigiovis national awards for its nationally recognized. and its community involvement componentG. ficance when one considers its contributions to the Little Rock communjty. Fiscal stress is confronting school districts from Washington, D.C, to Most of those that have school volunteer programs see that the Tacoma. is of additional time, expertise and services, for rate of return, in term\nthe minimal budget outlay is too enormous to forego. For those districts. especially in urban areas, that need the more intangxblc benefits of commu .. ___ j_ J_ _ ___________ 4-l-so 4 n sr'l'inol  nity involvement to maintain a balanced atmosphere in the public schools. the decision should be equally clear: essential, the school volunteer program is The ini- The times demand local community support for public school endeavors, Reagan administration is asking uc to renew our faith in local private tiatives rather than dependence upon big government. The National .-.chool Volunteer Program is prepared to help public education meet the challenges implicit in the President',s policies, wWee hhaavvee ssuuppppoorrtt ffrroomm ccoorrppoorraattiioonn.s. and foundations to promote' parent and volunteer involvement in the public schools, and to assist desegregation efforts. school districts with the problems emanating from National School Voluntaar Program, Inc., 300 N. Waanington Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 (703) 836-4880 4 TEL: Nov 05,92 14:55 No .002 P.03 Mr. Herbert Rule, HI May 15, 1981 Page Two School Volunteer Program . r.nntitw^ encouraging and Little Rock, and we The Little Rock intcnfl to continue efforts to can do it without help public education a (iamonstrution I will continue to convey to Association, and Paul Strators, the value of The is doing the same things for supporting their iirvive these hard times. None of us within the public schools. ...1 of support from National School Boards Thomas Shannon, of the ialmon of the American Association school volunteerism. Little Rock School VolunteerL Program is too v cially nowl STG/rvm CC I Paul Masem Anne Brown of School Admini-alunble to forego, cspe- Sincerely, Sandra T. Gray Executive Director UlRS VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEWS RELEASE VIPS Needs Mentors For Students February 3, 1993 For more information, contact Debbie Milam at 324-2290 or 663-7336 Want to make the difference in the future of a Little Rock child? You can help a child succeed if you have Just one free hour a week by participating in the Little Rock Volunteers in Public Schools Mentoring Program, Approximately one hundred mentors are working with elementary-age students through the VIPS program. Mentors stop by the schools once per week to visit with their students. VIPS is currently trying to recruit and place 100 more mentors to work with children on a waiting list. Community organizations are urged to consider adopting the mentoring program as a community service project, Interested volunteers can receive more information at an orientation session at 6-00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 9 in the Little Rock School District board room, 810 West Markham Street. The mentoring program is designed to increase students' interest in school and self-esteem by using an adult role model matched to each participating student. By acting as a special friend or advisor, the mentors encourage students to be enthusiastic about learning and staying in school. - MORE - 501 SHERMAN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 (501)324-229002'03 93 17:18 0301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @004/004 Little Rock School District NEWS REUEASE Parent Workshop Set on Motivation February 4, 1993 For more information, contact Valerie Hudson at 324-2292 Volunteers in Pubhc Schools (VEPS) and the Little Rock School District are hosting a parent program. Motivating Your ChUd To Succeed, on Sunday, February 7, 1993 from 2:30 - 3:30 p.m. at St. John Baptist Church, feUowship room, 109 W. Roosevelt Road, Little Rock. The guest speaker. Dr. Emma Kelly Rhodes, was a dropout at 15 and the widowed moer of seven at age 29 who went on to receive her doctorate. Dr. Rhodes will share her personal expenences with parents to help them inspire their own children and encourage them to become more involved in their childrens education. Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) was founded in 1972 to provide assistance to teachers and other staff members of the Little Rock School District by promoting school volunteerism. VIPS serves as a link between the District and the community by providin\npatrons an opportunity to be significantly involved in the education of our children. Last year. 5,869 volunteers contributed 106,458 hours valued at $1,139,101 to the Little Rock School District. All parents of the Little Rock School District are invited to attend. For further information about the program or to make reservations, contact Valerie Hudson at 324-2292 or Catherine GUI at 324-2272. # # #02'03.-93 17:18 0301 324 2032 L R School Dlst  003 - 004 -- 0D)I VIPS Mentoring Program, page 2 Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) was founded in 1972 to provide assistance to teachers and other staff members of the Little Rock School District by promoting school volunteerism. VIPS serves as a link between the District and the community by providing patrons an opportunity to be significantly involved in the education of our children. Last year, 5,869 volunteers contributed 106,458 hours valued at $1,139,101 to the Little Rock School District. For further information about the program or to reserve a place at the orientation, contact Valerie Hudson or Debbie Milam at the District VIPS office at 324-2292. # # #04/18/93 15:20 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 12001/002 iiiRs VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEWS RET.EASF VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO CELEBRATE 2()Tll ANNIVERSARY April 16, 1993 For more information, contact Debbie Milam at 324-2297 (o), 663-7336 (h) Little Rock Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) will host its eleventh annual district-wide volunteer recognition reception, an \"Evening for the Stars\", on Tuesday, April 20, 1993 at 6:30 p.m. The event will be held at Dunbar Community Center at 16th and Chester Streets. This year's reception will celebrate VIPS' twentieth anniversary and recognize members of the community who helped found the program in 1972. Awards will be presented to recognize school with outstanding performance in volunteer involvement and school/business partnerships. A special award established by VIPS in honor of the program's founder, Jane Mendel, will be presented to a volunteer who has achieved an exceptional level of service. Entertainment will be provided by the J.A. Fair High School Wind Ensemble. A silent auction will also be held to raise funds for VIPS' program budget. The event is free and open to the public. Call 324-2290 to make reservations. -more- 501 SHERMAN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 (501)324-2290 C304/16/93 13:21 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002'002 page two-VIPS VZPS was founded in 1972 to provide assistance to teachers and other staff members of the Little Rock School District by promoting school volunteerism. VIPS serves as a link between the District and the community while providing patrons and citizens an opportunity to be significantly involved in the education of children. Last school year, 5,869 people documented 106,458 hours of volunteer service valued at $1,139,101 to the Little Rock School District. 30 -06'03.93 12:24 SSai 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/003 June 3, 1993 VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEWS RELEASE VIPS Hosts a Mentor Appreciation Picnic For more information, contact: Debbie Milam at 324-2297 On Friday, June 4, 1993, Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) will host a year-end celebration picnic for participants in the VIPS Mentoring Program. The picnic will be held at McArthur Park in the gazebo area from 5:00 until 8:00 p.m. ( II i I I The picnic is held to show appreciation to the mentors who spend one hour a week with students helping improve attitudes toward school and learning, as well as working to increase students self-esteem. The students families are invited to attend to encourage parents to get involved in their childs education. Approximately 150 people are expected to attend, among those will be a group of law students who tutor/mentor children at Rockefeller I ' i Elementary School. Most of the students participating in the mentoring program attend t I downtown incentive elementary schools (Franktu (jarland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, RockefeUer and Stephens). Food for the picnic has been donated by T. C. Bar-B-Que and Hamburgers, Lindseys i Hospitality House, McDonalds of Broadway and Wonder Hostess Thrift Shop. Music will be provided by a volunteer, Michael Sinclair, and stories wUl be told by Curtis Tate, a weU-known local storyteller. - MORE - 501 SHERMAN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 (501)324-2290 UAHUBI BBSS 06.03 93 12:24 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @003.003 I VIPS was founded in 1972 to provide assistance to teachers and other staff members of the Little Rock School District by promoting school volunteerism. VIPS serves as a link between the District and the community by providing patrons an opportunity to be significantly involved in the education of our children. i For more information about the picnic, contact Valerie Hudson or Debbie Milam 'of the I Districts Volunteers in Public Schools office at 324-2292. I I09/17-93 IS: 23 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @001/003 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOO 810 West MarkI Little Rock, AR L DISTRICT ham 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 DATE:  n, m3 TO: FROM: SENDER'S PHONE#: JO SUBJECT: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Number of Pages (include cover page Speed Dial Fax Phone Number 09/17/93 18:24 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst 0D5I @002'003 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE Students in LRSD Need Mentors September 17, 1993 For more information, contact Debbie Milam at 324-2290 Students in the Uttle Ruch School District incentive schools ate appenling to pntons to serve as mentors to help them succeed in school. By giving up one of your lunch hours a week and acting as a special friend or advisor you can help encourage a child to stay in school and become more enthusiastic about learning Approxiinately seventy mentors ate woriring with elementaty-age students through the VIPS program. Mentors stop by the schools once per week to visit with their students. Due to the increased demand for more mentors, VIPS is currently trying to recruit and place mentors with those children in need. Community organizations mentoring program as a community service project. are urged to consider adopting the Interested volunteers can receive more information at an orientation session at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday. September 28. in the Little Rock School District board room. 810 West Markham Street. The mentoring program is designed to increase students interest in school and self- esteem by using an adult role model matched to each participating student. -MORE -09/17/93 18:25 0501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 003/003 VIPS Mentoring Program page 2 volunteers in PubUc Schools (VIPS) was founded in  pvide asdoan.. to teachers and other staff members of the Little Rock School District by promoting school volunteerism. VIPS serves as a link between the District and the community by providing patrons an opportunity to be significantly involved in the education of our children. Last year, 7,541 volunteers contributed 131,300.50 hours of service valued at $1,520,459.79 to the Little Rock School District. For further information about the program or to reserve a place at the orientation, contact Valerie Hudson or Debbie Milam at the District VIPS office at 324-2292. ###00 A7 '98'* 18:24 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/003 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE Students in LRSD Need Mentors September 17, 1993 For more information, contact Debbie Milam at 324-2290 Students in the Lirte Rock School Distdet incentive schools are appealing b patona  serve as nenwrs to help them snored in school. By giving up one of yoor lunch houB a week and actino as a special friend or advisor you can help encourage a child to stay in school and become more enthusiastic about learning. Appravmateiy seventy mentors are working with elementary-age students through the VIPS program. Mentors stop by the schools once per week to visit with their students. Due to the increased demand for more mentors, VIPS is currently trying to recruit and place mentors with those children in need. Community organi2ations are urged to consider adopting the mentoring program as a community service project. Interested volunteers can receive more information at an orientation session at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Septetnbet 28, in the Little Rock School District hoard room, 810 West Markham Street. ine mentoring program is designed to increase students interest in school and self- esteem by using an adult role model matched to each participating student. - MORE- West Markham and Izard Streets  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-336109 *17 '93* 18:25 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @003/003 VIPS Mentoring Program page 2 * Volm in Public Schools (VIPS) was founded in 1972 to provide assistance to teachers and other staff members of the Little Rock School District by promoting school volunteerism. VIPS serves as a link between the District and the community by providing patrons an opportunity to be significantly involved in the education of our children. Last year, 7,541 volunteers contributed 131,300.50 hours of service valued Rock School District. at $1,520,459.79 to the Little For further information about the program or to reserve a place at the orientation, contact Valerie Hudson or Debbie Milam at the District VIPS office at 324-2292.WWW Volunteers m Public Schools NEWS RELEASE LRSD Recruiting Mentors January 7, 1994 For more information, contact Debbie Milam at 324-2297 or 663-7336 or Jeanette Wagoner at 324-2020 The Little Rock School District Volunteers in Public Schools proPTam is appRaiing to the community to serve as mentors to children. By giving up one lunch hour a week to be a special friend or advisor volunteers can encourage children to stay in school and become more enthusiastic about learning. Due to an increased demand for mentors, VEPS is currently recruiting mentors to match with other children in need. Community organiTatinn'\nare urged to consider adopting the mentoring program as a community service project. Interested volunteers can receive more information at an orientation session at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 11, in the Little Rock School District board room, 810 West Markham Street. Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) was founded in 1972 to provide assistance to teachers and other staff members of the Little Rock School District by promoting school volunteerism. VIPS serves as a link between the District and the community by providing patrons an opportunity to be significantly involved in the education of our children. Last year, 7,541 volunteers contributed 131,300.50 hours of service valued at $1,520,459.79. To reserve a place at the orientation or for further information about the program, contact Debbie Milam at 324-2297. ### Little Rock School District  501 Sherman Street  Little Rock, AR 72202  (501) 524-22901 09:17 0501 324 2032 L R School Dlst la 002/002 --- ODM uttle Rock School District NEWS RELEASE LRSD Students in Need of Role Models/Mentors\nFebruary 8, 1994 For more information, contact Debbie MUam at 324-2297 or 663-7336 or Jeanette Wagner at 324-2020 Students from the Little Rock School District, along with Volunteers in Public Schools, ! are appealing to the community to serve as role models/mentors to help children succeed in school. Volunteers can encourage children to stay in school and become more enthnsiastic about learning by giving up one lunch hour a week to be special friends and advisors. Community organizations are urged to consider adopting the mentoring program as a community service  project. Interested volunteers can receive more information at an orientation session at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 15, in e Little Rock School District board room, 810 West Markham Street. Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) was founded in 1972 to provide assistance to teachers and other staff members of the Little Rock School District by promoting school volunteerism. VIPS serves as a link between the District and the community by providing  patrons an opportunity to be significantly involved in the education of our children. Last year,  7,541 volunteers contributed 131,300.50 hours of service valued at $1,520,459.79. To reserve a place at the orientation or for further information about the program, ! contact Valerie Hudson at 324-2292. Jr jr 7?1 ^^794 13:38 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 0 002/002 Volunteers in Public Schools NEWS RELEASE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LUNCHEON TO RECOGNIZE VIPS VOLUNTEERS February 11,1994 For more information, contact Debbie Milam at 324-2297 or 663-7336 or Jeanette Wagner at 324-2020 Little Rock Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) will host its annual recognition luncheon for school-based volunteer coordinators on Tuesday, February 15, 1994 from 11:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. The event will be held at the University Adult Activity Center at 6401 West 12th Street. Arkansas First Lady Betty Tucker will be the luncheon's keynote speaker. VIPS was founded in 1972 to provide assistance to teachers in the Little Rock School District by promoting school volunteerism. Last school year, 7,541 volunteers documented 131,301 hours of volunteer service valued at $1,520,459.79 Little Rock School District. to the -30- Little Rock School District  501 Sherm:an Sireer  T irrle Rnrlr ar  z'sntly'O9 94 14:30 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/002 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE LRSD Students in Need of Role Models/Mentors March 9, 1994 For more information, contact Debbie Milam at 324-2297 Jeanette Wagner at 324-2020 Students from the Little Rock School District, along with Volunteers in Public Schools, are appealing to the community to serve as role models/mentors to help children succeed in school. Volunteers can encourage children to stay in school and become more enthusiastic about learning by giving up one lunch hour a week to be special friends and advisors. Community organizations are urged to consider adopting the mentoring program as a community service project Interested volunteers can receive more information at an orientation session at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 15, in the Little Rock School District board room, 810 West Markham Street. Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) was founded in 1972 to provide assistance to teachers and other staff members of the Little Rock School District by promoting school volunteerism. VIPS serves as a link between the District and the community by providing s patrons an opportunity to be significantly involved in the education of our children. Iyear, 7,541 volunteers contributed 131,300.50 hours of service valued at $1,520,459.79. To reserve a place at the orientation or for further information about the program, contact Valerie Hudson at 324-2292. ###Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (SOI) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 April 7. 1994 Ms. Debbie Milam Volunteers in Public Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Debbie and Wonderful VIPS Colleagues: Thank you so much for the snazzy and eye-catching invitation to An Evening For The Stars, which came in todays mail. Sounds like you are gearing up for a terrific event where a great time will be had by all. 1 wish 1 could be there to enjoy the show, but 111 be in California on April 26, visiting my folks. Ill be thinking of you on that Tuesday though, and have my family save newspaper accounts of the evening so 1 can read all about it when 1 return. Best wishes for a star-studded good time! Love to all, Ann BrownAn Evening \\ For The Stars V- \u0026lt; A APR 71994 ot DesagrcWion Monilofin^ t- 4 loin us for a special evening to honor and say \"thank you\" to Little Rock School District Volunteers Partners in Education and those who work with volunteers Tuesday. April 26, 1994 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. The Children's Museum of Arkansas 1400 W. Markham at the Train Station Please RSVP to 324-2290 (Because of limited space, we regret that we cannot include children.) Entertainment  Awards Ceremony  Reception  Silent Auction Sponsored by Volunteers in Public Schools VOLUNTEER NeWS Volunteers in Public Schools, Little Rock, Arkansas Little Rock School District Midyear 1993-94 Mentors Can Make a Difference Everyone is talking about mentoring these days, but many times we are all talking about different things when we use the term. Most of the time, we mean a one-to-one relationship between an adult and a student designed to provide the student with a positive relationship with a caring adult. There are many benefits of mentoring. Students' feelings about themselves improve as they spend time with their adult friends who come to visit them. These visits expose students to different lifestyles, new careers and positive attention from caring adults. Students' attendance, grades and attitudes often show improvement. We can only address the problems facing our youth when thousands of private citizens become involvednot fust interested, or aware of the problems or concerned about the failings of our studentsbut involved. A mentor usually visits a student once per week during the school day to talk and work quietly on different types of projects. Many mentors visit on their lunch hours and spend the first 15-20 minutes of their visits eating lunch with the students. Most then spend the remainder of their time in the media center visiting with each other, reading, studying. playing games and engaging in many other age-appropriate activities. VIPS recommends screening all volunteers who will work with children as mentors due to the intimate nature of mentoring friendships. Screening helps us get to know more about our volunteers and their likes/dislikes, and helps ensure that those entering a mentoring program are appropriate for such volunteer assignments. The VIPS office has applications available for completing the screening process. Mentors need orientation as to what is expected of them. VIPS has designed a mentor handbook that can be used as a base for orientation, and the staff offers monthly ninety minute orientation sessions as well as train-the-trainer sessions for schools that want to handle their own training. We can only address the problems facing our youth when thousands of private citizens become involvednot just interested, or aware of the problems, or concerned abou t the failings of our studentsbut in vol ved. Many people have already volunteered to become mentors, but many more children are still waiting to be matched with adults. Schools are encouraged to add mentoring to their lists of volunteer opportunities. The VIPS staff can assist schools in setting up new programs, help with screening and training existing mentors who need it, and recruit new volunteers from the community to join mentoring programs. Contact Valerie Hudson or Debbie Milam at 324-2290 for more information. Did you know... One Person Can Impact Youth Violence Mentor a student who needs a friend. Visit a school whenever you can to eat lunch and talk to students. Speak to a class on your favorite subject. Chaperone a field trip. Involve your business or employer in a school/ business partnership. I\nProvide incentives (certificates, ribbons, pencils, T-shirts, pizzas, sandwiches, videos, books, NJ money, etc.) for children who achieve school goals. Tutor a student who doesn't read well. Provide internships at your business for students, Provide part-time and summer jobs for students. *AlIow students to job shadow at your place of employment. *Help students prepare for college or job hunting. Sponsor a school club, such as gymnastics, dance, drama, art, music, drug abuse prevention, photography, etc. Join a school PTA. Get involved. Call 324-2290. 2 Volunteer News, Volunteers in Public Schools, Little Rock, Arkansas Midyear 1993-94 Investing In Youth The 1994 Arkansas Volunteer Directions Conference will be held at the Holiday Inn Airport on Friday, April 29,1994. The conference theme is \"Investing in Youth.\" Workshop topics include youth intervention programs, youth volunteerism and grant writing, as well as other topics associated with volunteer programs. Registration for the one-day conference is $45. Contact Debbie Milam, conference chairperson, at 324-2297 for information. Mentor!  s I -I i A F bWId j V - VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN, LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 324-2290 Purpose: To provide assistance to the teachers and staff of the Little Rock School District by recruiting, training and coordinating volunteers in all district schools. VIPS motto is \"Helping Teachers Help Kids.\" Virgil Miller, Jr., VJPS Board President VIPS Staff Debbie Milam. VfPS/Partners in Education Coordinator, Leia Hodges, Re-source Secretary\nValerie Hudson, Incentive School Coordinator\nLee Ann Matson. Resource Coordinator Gayle Wilson, School Coordinator Anna Zawislak, Office Manager Anna Zawislak. Editor Ten years and counting...Fatiinah Akbar and Barbara Moore received Superintendent Citations at the February 24th school board meeting for their ten years of volunteer service as VIPS chairpersons. Fatimah served at Ish and Forest Park and is presently VIPS chairperson at Stephens Incentive School. Barbara has managed the volunteer program at Western Hills for ten consecutive years. Fatimah and Barbara are examples of longterm commitment to the children of the Little Rock School District. They will be the first to tell you that it isa worthwhile investment. Thanks, Barbara and Fatimah, for making VIPS one of your lives' priorities! NAPE Announces Awards Entries must be postmarked by June 30 in two major awards programs being conducted by the National Association of Partners in Education this year. The McKee Foods Corporation Award will be given to six individuals who have contributed significantly to the development and extension of the Partners in Education movement at local, state, and/or national levels. The United Technologies Exemplary Award for School Volunteer and Partnership Programs will recognize three school volunteer programs and three business/agency/education partnerships that have been in operation for at least two years and have achieved substantive effects for their schools. Each of the six winning programs will receive a cash award of $1,000. Nomination forms are available from VIPS. Retired Teacher Volunteers Honored The Pulaski Heights Lions club recently presented their \"Hall of Fame\" awards to the following retired teachers who volunteer in the District: Dr. Rose Berry, Bernice Hayman, La vada P. Mason and Delois Sykes. Thanks, retired teachers, for continuing to share your experience with students! Midyear 1993-94 Volunteer News. Volunteers in Public Schools, Little Rock, Arkansas Luncheon Honors 3 The VIPS Board of Directors showed its heartfelt appreciation of the hard work and dedication of our school volunteer chairpersons by providing a gala luncheon in their honor February 15, at the Adult Activity Center. Arkansas' First Lady, Betty Tucker, led the school district administration, principals and VIPS Board members in praise of the importance of the chairperson's role in supporting their schools and teachers to benefit the children. Enjoying the moment (above, from left to right), Martha Rimmer, VIPS recording secretary\nMrs. Tucker\nand Doris Williams, first vice president and co-chairperson of the event. (Right) Sadie Mitchell, principal of King and Vips board member\nSusan Myers, VIPS chairperson at Mabelvale Elementary\nChristy Rowe, chairperson at Cloverdale Elementary and her appreciative principal, Fredrick Fields. Chairpersons For Service to Schools 4 Volunteer News, Volunteers in Public Schools, Little Rock, Arkansas Midyear 1993-94 Little Rock School District Partners in Education March 1,1994 Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield Arkansas Cattlemen's Association Arkansas Children's Hospital Arkansas Democrat Gazette Arkansas Department of Health Arkansas Department of Human Services Arkansas Educational Television Network Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation Arkansas Human Resources Association Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light Company Arkansas Sports Medicine Arkansas Telephone \u0026amp; Telegraph (AT\u0026amp;T) Associated Milk Producers AutoZone Babcock \u0026amp; Wilcox - ST Company Backyard Burgers Bimam Wood Nurseries, Ltd. Central Arkansas Rehabilitation Hospital Central Records Services, Inc. Courtyard by Marriott Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. Educational Benefits, Inc. Electronic Data Systems (EDS) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission The Family Clinic, Ltd. First Commercial Bank Ghana Association of Arkansas Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce Harrison Trane Air Conditioning Harvest Foods Harvest Foods Extra - Geyer Springs #4426 Holiday Inn West Janet Jones Realty Junior Deputy Sheriffs of Pulaski County KATV-TV Channel 7 Kenny Rogers Roasters Kids Spot Pediatric Physical Therapy Services Kroger #550 Kroger #582 - Colony West Kroger #604 Kroger #615 Kroger #632 - Asher Avenue KTHV-TV Channel 11 Little Rock Black Police Association Little Rock District Corps of Engineers Little Rock Municipal Water Works Little Rock Wastewater Utility Little Rock Zoo McDonald's - Markham Parkway McDonald's - Rodney Parham McDonald's - Roosevelt Meadowbrook Community Club Metropolitan Junior Chamber of Commerce Metropolitan National Bank Metropolitan Vo-Tech Education Center Mexico Chiquito Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard Modem Woodmen of America - Mallett District Neuro-Psychiatric Diagnostic Center Old Mill Bread \u0026amp; Flour Co. The Olive Garden Optimist Club of West Little Rock Outback Restaurant Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. Pilot Club of Little Rock Pizza Inn Presbyterian Village Professor Bowl Rebsamen Insurance Rotary Club #99 - Downtown RSVP Catering Ruby Tuesday Sam's Club Sidney Moncrief Pontiac Buick GMC Truck Shorter College Smoky Hollow Foods Social Security Administration Southwest Hospital Southwestern Ml - Engineering Department Storer Cable Subway Systematics Information Services, Inc. Twin City Bank Twin City Bank - Capitol \u0026amp; Spring Twin City Bank - Heights Branch Twin City Bank - Park Plaza Twin City Bank - West Markham Unitarian Universalist Church University Hospital of Arkansas University of Arkansas at Little Rock (College of Arts, Humanities \u0026amp; Social Sciences) University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law University of Arkansas School for Medical Sciences US Department of Housing \u0026amp; Urban Development Wal-Mart #124 Wal-Mart #920 Waste Management of Arkansas (North) Way Out Willies Webster University Wendy's of Little Rock Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts The Willis Group,\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_775","title":"Westside Junior High School site","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":["1991/1992"],"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","Westside Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School buildings","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Westside Junior High School site"],"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/775"],"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\nSite Evaluation and Study V/ 'Stside Junior High School L.\\ 'e Rock School District \u0026gt; August 1, 1991 CHILCOTE CARTER GASKIN BOGART \u0026amp; NORCROSS Architects I Engineers STUDY/EVALUATION OF EXISTING WESTSIDE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING AND SITE This study is prepared to assist the Little Rock School District in determining the feasibility of retrofiting the existing school versus demolition and new construction on the site for an elementary school to accommodate approximately 650 students from 4 year olds. Kindergarten and grades 1-6. The results of this study/evaluation are presented in a format in accordance with our proposal outlined in our letter of July 17, 1991, based on information contained in a request for proposal from the Little Rock School District dated July 9, 1991. A. Structural Evaluation and Basic Modifications Required Existing school consists of two separate buildings of three levels each. Structural systems vary within each buildin, g from floor to floor. In most instances columns are reinforced concrete with floor construction consisting of reinforced concrete flat slabs and in some areas, concrete joists with tile fiUer between. In some instances there are concrete beams with one-way slabs while in others, metal pan, concrete joists span between concrete beams. The roof system consists primarily of wood frame structure with 2 x 8s at 16\" on center supporting 1x6 wood decking. Lesser portions of the roof system consist of: - Heavy steel trusses supporting wood framing above the gymnasium with wood frame clerestory windows providing illumination. - Light steel bar joists using chicken wire support for concrete fill. Interior walls appear to be 12\" masonry with one inch plaster each side. All interior walls appear to be load bearing. While interior walls could be added to sub-divide the existing rooms, no interior walls can be removed other than on the top floor since they are load bearing. The possibility exists for the removal of certain interior walls at the third level, provided the appropriate roof framing is utilized spanning between the outside and major corridor walls. This does severely limit the flexibility in changing interior configurations to more appropriately accommodate elementary classrooms.  The resistance to wind loading would take precedence over seismic factors in Little Rocks seismic Zone 1. The buildings appear very stable, with minimal evidence of settlement or cracking.  Major structural considerations, other tha.n the new roof smcmre, would be the requirement to add an elevator for both the east 3 west handicapped accessibility and the additicn of two fire s requirements. uilcm: drs to 25 . m: ide fcr .s:c :x: 1B. Evaluation of Feasibility of Meeting Current Fire and Life Safety Codes, and for Provision of Handicapped Accessibility to the Building The building is considered to be Type II construction. If sprinkled, this structure could contain unlimited square footage per level or unlimited heights. If the building were sprinkled, two fire stairs would be required to provide for the required exiting from both buildings. Without sprinkling, three stairs would be required\nhowever the main monumental stairway on the east side of the east building could be enclosed to provide for the third exit way. One elevator would be required for each building since changes of level by stairway are now required to move horizontally between the two buildings. Handicapped accessibility would be limited to grade level entrances and elevators utilized to provide access to the various levels between the buildings. C. Evaluation of the Buildings Ability to Accommodate an Elementary School and of the Sites Ability to Accommodate Nevp Construction in Related Areas for an Elementary School. Existing buildings contains 84,870 gross square feet of enclosed space, exclusive of court yards.  First level of entire east building is approximately 1/2 level below grade. It would be necessary to \"tunnel\" north and south out of the building to provide grade-level access for 4 year old, Kindergarten, and 1st grade students. The lower level of this building could be modified to accommodate the areas necessary for these age children, including those areas where access would be required. The area of this level appears adequate to accommodate the Media Center (Library), Cafeteria, and Music Areas. Four year olds. Kindergarten, and 1st graders would not be allowed accessibility to the Auditorium, Multi-purpose, P.E., Pal, Gifted and Talented or Art Areas in accordance with State Department of Education requirements that these age youngsters not be allowed above grade level elevations. Request for deviations from this requirement have historically been rejected by the Little Rock Building Code officials and the Board of Appeals.  Modifying thi lower level of the building to accommodate 4 year old Kinderganen and 1st grader facilities would reduc square feet per room resulting in many small, odd-si som: e rooms be onr\nh 909 2The site does not conform to the minimum requirement of acreage for an elementary school however this requirement has been waived consistently by the State Department of Education in the Little Rock area. The school existed in the area before many of the commercial and residential siuToundings, therefore current set-back requirements are undetermined at this time. The existing building and site relationships limit the amount of outside play area however a total of the interior courts and the existing grounds appear to provide the minimum playground space requirements. While parking might be arranged for after-school events on adjacent property through cooperative efforts, general parking available for staff appears to be inadequate with existing building configuration. Four alternate configurations are presented for new structures in the 70,000- 75,000 foot range in accordance with information previously provided by the Little Rock School District. One drawing is provided showing possible modifications of the existing building to provide for the program requirements. The reduced prints provided for our review of the two buildings are of different scales and we are providing new drawings of the three levels of both buildings at the same scale for clarification of study comments. Many of the substantial modifications required to accommodate an Elementary School would not be required if the building was upgraded to current standards for Junior High level students. Several items of significance might be utilized elsewhere if the building is to be demolished, i.e.: the auditorium seating is in remarkably good shape and appear to be useful without refinishing, entablature and frieze trim at main entrance, stone urns at monumental stair - all have intrinsic values as memorabilia. Since the major corridors are twelve foot wide and requirements are for eight foot corridors, a 2 deep storage area could be constructed on each side of the corridor. This would also provide \"pockets\" for out-swinging classroom doors and \"excess\" circulation space could provide supplementary classroom and general storage area or house lockers. 3D. General Cost Analysis between Renovation of Existing Building and Construction of New Two Story Facility 1. Renovation No portions of the electrical, heating, ventilating or plumbing systems are salvageable. Electrical distribution would be through the generous space above the ceilings on each floor and surface mounted on the walls, after the removal of the existing ceiling systems and prior to stripping and furring the existing masonry walls. The utilization of metal supported accessible ceilings would allow for new lighting throughout the building. HVAC could be introduced by the utilization of duct work in the generous above-ceihn^ spaces, however it would appear to more appropriate to utilize hot and chill water distribution from central boiler and chillers to individual room units to provide the required comfort. All plumbing risers, major drain lines and all new fixtures would be required as well as additional toilet rooms to provide for minimum requirements. New food service equipment and support systems would be required.  We estimate the installation of new MEP systems in the existing structure to cost $1,250,000. We estimate the total cost of renovation and reconstruction required within the existing facility to cost between $2,250,000 and $2,500,000. 2. New Two-Story Facility A new two-story Elementary School constructed on this site will require grade level access, an elevator to accommodate the handicapped, controlled outside play areas, and can be expected to cost approximately $47.50 a square foot for a total cost between $3,300,000 and $3,500,000. A flat site, sufficiently large to accommodate the square footage requirements and related facilities for an Elementary School on one level could allow ccnstrucdon costs to bs reduced to appr square foot. iy $40 per ix: 4Current data indicates that life-cycle maintenance and operational costs escalate in instances where there is dilution of building system qualities and energy and quality construction considerations are compromised. We estimate that demolition of the existing structure would cost $110,000. Additional site preparation is not being considered since the exact configuration of a new facility is as yet undetermined. The existing site has a fall of approximately 11 foot along Marshall Street, from north to south\napproximately 3-4 foot fall from north to south along Wolfe Street and is approximately level east to west along 13th Street. Therefore grade-level access and egress could be easily provided if the site were reconfigured closer to the existing, surrounding grades without the loss of tress around the perimeter of the site. E. Summary of the Four Major Factors in the Study and Recommendations  1. Structural Integrity  The roof structure must be entirely replaced and some minor patching of concrete slabs will be required where reinforcing steel is exposed. Other than this the building appears to be sound and stable with little or no evidence of settlement or deterioration. New window and doors together with the new roof structure and roof would restore the building envelope. 2. Code Compliance and Handicapped Accessibility Sprinkling of all three levels of both buildings is required.  The addition of two elevators is required. The construction of two fire towers is required. The above plus the installation of completely new mechanical and electrical systems and fire and smoke alarm/detection systems would bring the building into compliance with current codes with the exception of parking provisions. 53. Ability to comply with State Department of Education Standards and to be Modified for Practical Classroom Utilization. As can be seen from the sketches indicating possible reconfiguration of the existing building (particularly the lower level for 4 year olds, Kindergarten and 1st graders) even with extensive modifications and the introduction of \"tunnels\" out to grade, the building still provides questionable classroom configuration for students 6 years old and under and can not provide for participation of these ages occurring above the first floor (assemblies, special education areas, etc.) and seriously compromises the function of the school for 4 to 6 year old students. 4. Economic Considerations The building can be renovated for approximately $1,000,000 less than demolition and subsequent new construction on the same site and this can be accomplished in less time. The necessity to review all decisions with all the appropriate agencies, resolve the obvious concerns regarding 6 years and under age children confined to the first level and the compromises required to meet bare minimum room size standards would require substantial planning time. Development of food service and the many other support areas that would be required to be located on the first floor with the resulting traffic flow impacts would also necessitate much evaluation and study time, cutting into the time gained by starting with a substantial building shell. Architect/Engineer fees would fall in the 10% range for renovation work. 5. Recommendations We suggest that even if the building were renovated successfully, the heritage of this school maintained, money and time saved, the resulting facility would be a substantial compromise to education standards and functions, and the best interest of the School District and its patrons would not be served. We believe that if this is a desirable location for an Elementary School, the long-range benefits of appropriate new construction outweigh the economic advantages of renovation of this existing facility. 6I ff o a a a 7^ I F T1 3-0 \"1 f/ J v I 3 L 7 I44u si-. d 'i I I nz I -i* lT e JL 4 Tf I 0 0 o 9 0 a 'r 0 Q r. ti  I x) I y l'=b-Hi feXI^TtNC^ Puootx, peA^ L.^\u0026lt;4. Or\u0026gt;\u0026lt;-. oSr-  WG^TSiog-Jri-.H-IMH- school t- ilr^h\\ op-Tl-^ ToTn^ sF - S4-\n\\oo.6o S iril UjG\u0026lt;\n'TSlOS- Jrt-. hh\u0026lt;oAr \u0026lt;ic44-.ou-' NorX-TUr , J i' fi L,. I If L  J L r* J ! li J 'Zl' u li A ir L J\" 5 I ] (pTH \u0026lt;2\u0026gt; Fn-ooA- P c-A^ LcaJ*X^ 'tKr-tx- 'Z.Z,^ oo P t \\aJ\u0026amp;\u0026lt;t'TSiD\u0026amp;'J/T-. kKot+- Sc-*+oo|_ . r ^\u0026lt;^o' -t-\n7 7I ofvrH- / U. low I %oo Sin? j u. 5%o I I I I CoIcA|U~T , IXtO  loSu Ito ' 4Xr.. I  (a\\l. J v l^T loSo %oo i too g\u0026gt;^4 i 'll?, HAVrtt Ko -p-iwin CoOC^ NVjitC, Lao\u0026lt;U\u0026lt; .fi 4lo KT U'i r Ek^+. J C/\u0026gt;ry\u0026lt;roM \u0026lt;:\u0026gt; $ I 5 s I '. I I T I I s 56 AOM^^ s I '\\'fc Mi\u0026lt;3iA tMPV . J c r I b'H^ H\u0026amp;Va/ Fvooi\u0026lt;. PlAtsJ_______ L\u0026lt;.vt3L On-c^ ulesTs^'oe i^'+ scrFoo  - f So'  I I Ho^T(4-.\\ INC 114-1- o. i^a b Cr b OSS tslevJ r- I ihS-A% o : I I SToo. it \\'bo ! ! I l I C-ou*JX M-T [BS AjtfiToiuuM c.roo TA fag. C JUt [14V r A\u0026lt;*--T %4r 1.4^ b \u0026amp; e\u0026gt; lis?' oo- Pl\u0026gt;a^ vjesTSloe r= so't jaauM \u0026lt;\nchool^ fsj O /^'T~ / II tl!i- 1140. tiH 1.45 e\u0026gt; 'll \u0026amp; fc 4 TH 1159 I I '=ltx\u0026gt; 1 1 6Za-cjo4'f ~ 15 3'^ 1 Q N 11 loTrt Soo t-w T5O 5^0 pl [ I w/ Of A u= )\u0026gt; \u0026lt;.Ty- bKJ c\u0026lt;x\u0026gt;cT XAiuo UTrt ^50 ope4 TO A0OlT\u0026gt;-\u0026gt;i^M 5TH v4V 5T4 B4S- fe ?TH I I I ^l ^TAi-e Nv^ Fcoo'^ FLAtvI J'A-. *^+0^1' l*-=5o'i '7/S'^A I H o/2 tf4144U 7 5^.Ga. J,. .GJ. k r 7 O) T !7S^3ar ..^^,-74?. TL|Tf. B I'l 4\u0026gt;3\u0026lt;. JAh i' jii K I I o \u0026gt; o ,2 ^Ac^to^C c\u0026gt;A \"Vcaz* JTTW VJGtT?106 l= 9O' Mv$ - or-= f HtJLK 1^0*1 1(^ 5V. Cou, Cor\\$^lv^ \u0026lt;* ^\u0026gt; {*^ L*. Io $ 2%O* 54\" 5 ITS 'i-/T-l/'\\ 1 IH +1 o O I j+ r I \u0026amp; i\u0026amp; I X Hi 6\\T -siifAU.^ f^7 H 4- mw uiun 1 I  1 J o 3I \u0026lt; ?c-K-oot. ieess*. \u0026gt; U2-SP 1. r I X (? '1. I pToit, ( \u0026amp; c\u0026gt; l%o -'\u0026lt;t c I ? I B Ic. I 4 $ 5 t 4 n I 7 f t fjo A-T rt ^Cof^N AVc^.i/tA I 1 ^A4-t^'4or- 1 C^-Vk . /\"cL Hti+st. tv 1st IS.\" \u0026amp; fo ^.6  . .^ .s,- 2?' 4 l5T UT \\ST. wisjss sfo\u0026gt; I I fUa-Ih-i Coov-4y\u0026lt;Kvtk. T I 1 r I 1 4-\np- f'j.'. k- :---------- Connp.LuU , 'L^ \u0026lt;3 I P. -^s- '.,'X K I ! I :U I Cr r y ^'\\- pAt. o U N D Q \u0026lt;6 CJ! V , I I 1 I I J o 3 Lnrrn I^TH- 5T ujiin ^J\u0026amp;W Sorioou - UP-SP 4.  ^f'fcooS T' WCSTlioe JO-.H-iWH-siTt r^.^' 5?' t I I NoP-THI -4ii3A\" I \u0026amp; \u0026amp; 1 IrA I G-To. t,S-OCAJ ai^aacaeEMgyi^ r wwK^  *a I wrvisfJi!**' -rii' 's'lk 44U c \u0026gt;'A.'r'fA-io 74k t 1 ! 4K C *r'' 4-hA I fc-Hx ^-Tk +k C44\\ no ^. HEW ^g\u0026gt;H-ooU  LA-SO L*mU TwJa v4e5T\u0026lt;\u0026lt;oe J A.. $iT6^ r^r* I  I I K CxUM p i T ^.r. L. A Lb/ec two  U/\u0026amp;5-r*it:e IlE I L^-51^ Hl^H -blT^  L. ^44 2\u0026gt; S L -z. liUlllll I  I tt { 1 t lJe?E.-rH14-th \u0026gt;'n rase, ComP. Ae-r SP.ER sp.ee\u0026gt; SF.Ecj :!5SSS3Sa^\u0026lt;ieS!STJiKE^e3aiSf5395?: I I J 6104- 1 -TH-k k coJu, ------------------ rr^ 4rR. x ^^fTFroejo^q l-rfz. I \u0026lt;I 3!t fc fXc. -/ 5 o 2 I 4 inrm KJ hl\u0026amp;O 4^e\u0026gt;looL  L\\fe^.ok\u0026gt;./^lTE.'PLfcJ'\u0026gt; e=-e\u0026gt;oi ' To-Ya^ ^P, - / I 1 fc\u0026gt; I t 3 J I 5 !=\u0026gt; T + b Jk I 1 I slew scHbot kIo^'th 1*^ I \"ll?f\u0026gt;h\\ t I tJanuary 17, 1992 CENTRAL HIGH NEIGHBORHOOD ---------------r INC. \"J--------------- \"Weve Got Heritage? Ms. O. G. Jacovelli President Little Rock School Board 6622 Gold Court Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Dear Ms. Jacovelli: The undersigned residents of the Central High neighborhood and patrons of the Little Rock School District hereby submit for consideration by the Little Rock School Board an alternative proposal for the development of an interdistrict school in the Central High neighorhood. We propose creation of a two-campus educational facility--the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Educational Park--as the centerpiece of a neighborhood redevelopment initiative. Our proposal also would enable Ish Elementary School to remain in operation as an incentive school, an approach supported by patrons of Ish. The School Board's response to this proposal should be directed to Ethel Ambrose, president of the Central High Neighborhood Association, who can be reached during the day at 370-5950. 7^/z. Qi. Ms. Jacovelli 1/17/92 Page 2 cc: Little Rock School Board Members Dr. Ruth Steele Ann Brown Sam Jones John Walker Steve Jones Richard RoachellDr. Proposal to create the Martin Luther King, Educational Park Jr. and Neighborhood Redevelopment Initiative Submitted to the Little Rock School District by residents of the Central High Neighborhood January 17, 1992 BACKGROUND In its heyday during the'first half of this century, 'the area of Little Rock now known as the Central High neighborhood was served by three public schools: - Centennial School, an elementary school built in 1888\n- West Side Junior High School, built in 1917\nand - Little Rock Central High School, which opened in 1927. Only one of these schools--Central High--remains in operation in what now is a predominantly low- and moderate-income neighborhood. Children who live in the neighborhood presently are assigned to a variety of schools. Residents of the Central High neighborhood believe the neighborhood would benefit enormously from the existence--once again--of additional educational facilities.Page 2 In accordance with the Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has proposed locating a new interdistrict school, the King Elementary School, in the Central High neighborhood, utilizing the one-square-block (2.2 acre) site of West Side Junior High School at 14th and Marshall Streets. While residents are enthusiastic about the prospect of the neighborhood again being served by an elementary school, the Central High Neighborhood Association (CHNA) opposes the LRSD's plan as proposed. Members of CHNA believe the West Side site is too small for a 696-student elementary school, particularly one that must attract some 250 white students from the Pulaski County Special School District in order to meet desegregation requirements. In addition, members of CHNA, along with historic preservationists and other concerned Little Rock citizens, oppose the demolition of the historic West Side Junior High building, an irreplaceable resource that is an asset to the Central High neighborhood and should be incorporated into revised plans for a Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Educational Park,\" which canand should--serve as the centerpiece for a badly-needed neighborhood redevelopment initiative.Page 3 DE. MARTIN LUTHER KING. JR. EDUCATIQNAI^ PARK Residents of the Central High neighborhood advocate creation of a new educational facility, named for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. , which would include a rehabilitated West Side Junior High building and construction of a new school building on the former site of Centennial School at 15th and Wolfe Streets. The new building should serve as the downtown early childhood center, providing facilities for pre-schoolers (6 weeks-3 years), 4-year- olds, kindergarteners, and Ist-graders. The West Side Junior High building should be rehabilitated and converted to use for grades 2 through 6. Additional land, in blocks located adjacent to the West Side and Centennial sites, should be acquired to make certain the new educational facility has adequate space for playground areas and parking. Centennial site/Earlv Childhood Center The Centennial School site, located one block south and one block west of West Side Junior High, is bounded by 15th, 16th, Wolfe, and Battery Streets. The site presently is owned and maintained by the City of Little Rock as a public park, but CHNA believes the loss of the park, now frequented primarily by drugPage 4 dealers, would be more than outweighed by the benefits the neighborhood would derive from construction of an early childhood center. CHNA further believes the City would return the Centennial School site to the LRSD for the proposed educational use. center Finally, CHNA believes construction of an early childhood could be funded with the $1 million savings the LRSD would realize by rehabilitating the West Side Junior High building rather than demolishing it and constructing a new school on that site. Constructing an early childhood center on the Centennial site would take the place of the LRSD's current proposal to convert Ish Elementary School, an incentive school, into an early childhood center. The closing of Ish as an incentive school, which would entail reassigning Ish students to Rightsell and Mitchell Elementary Schools, is opposed by Ish patrons and would become unnecessary if an early childhood center were built on the Centennial site. West Side Junior Hiah/Grades 2 thrQuqh._ The West Side Junior High building, a landmark since 1917 in the Central High neighborhood, is structurally sound and a viable candidate for rehabilitation--as acknowledged by the LRSD's own study of the building, prepared last summer by the BlassPage 5 architectural firm. The Blass study further indicates that rehabilitating West Side would cost approximately $1 million less than demolishing it and building a new school. (As noted above. this $1 million savings would build--or at least go a long way toward building--an early childhood center on the Centennial site.) The major obstacle to the rehabilitation of West Side as an elementary school resulted from safety requirements that prohibit children 6 years old and under from occupying anything but grade- level space. Limiting the West Side building to use by children between the ages of 7 and 12 (grades 2 through 6) would solve this problem. The rehabilitation of the historic West Side building. in conjunction with construction of an early childhood center, also would constitute a major turning point for a neighborhood where disinvestment, deterioration, and demolition have been the norm for nearly three decades. The LRSD could lead the way in a neighborhood redevelopment initiative that would dovetail with neighborhood programs presently being developed by the City of Little Rock and major lending institutions.Page 6 Acquisition of Additional Land for Plavgrounds and Parking The Central High Neighborhood Association obviously is sensitive to the problems inherent in acquiring land occupied by houses in order to provide sufficient space for school playgrounds and parking. Nevertheless, CHNA believes additional land could be acquired, with cost, in any of minimal displacement of residents and at modest : several blocks adjacent to the West Side and Centennial sites where many houses are some lots already have been cleared. vacant and condemned and The likeliest candidates for whole or partial acquisition appear to be: - Block bounded by 13th, 14th, Battery, and Wolfe Streets\n- Block bounded by 14th, 15th, Battery, and Wolfe Streets\n- Block bounded by 14th, 15th, Wolfe, and Marshall Streets. The north end of the block directly south of the Centennial School site also contains several vacant and condemned houses on lots which might be acquired to expand the site for the early childhood center.Page 7 NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE In conjunction with creating the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Educational Park, the LRSD should become a leader in efforts already underway to stabilize and revitalize the Central High neighborhood. The City of Little Rock has designated the neighborhood a target area for revitalization efforts and is developing a \"model block\" program on Dennison Street just north of Central High School. A community development corporation (CDC) created by Worthen Bank is expected to operate in the neighborhood, and the \"Paint Your Heart Out\" program, spearheaded by First Commercial Bank, will improve the appearance of selected houses in the neighborhood. The Central High neighborhood also will be one of the areas investigated by the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) as a potential site for a neighborhoodbased CDC. Rather than working at cross purposes with neighborhood residents, the LRSD should become active in helping the neighborhood by: - soliciting input from residents on the design of new and rehabilitated educational facilities, including cooperating in efforts to create neighborhood meeting space and a branch library\n- helping to develop a master plan for the neighborhood's redevelopment (a major part of which should be information on thePage 8 LRSD's plans not only for the West Side and Centennial sites but also for Central High School)\n- assisting neighborhood residents in working with the City of Little Rock and financial institutions on creating programs aimed at rehabilitating existing housing stock and constructing new affordable housing on vacant lots in the neighborhood. SU14MARY There is rich potential for the development of a true schoolneighborhood partnership in the Central High area. Such a partnership could develop quality education for the children of this inner-city neighborhood and at the same time improve'the quality of life for children and adults through improved housing and reduction in crime. Such a partnership would be in the spirit of what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stood for and would benefit the entire city.TO\ncz FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST K-ARKH-AM STREET b'c -  Ruth S. Stesle, Superintendent of Schools SELECTION OF WEST SIDE SITE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL For many months the Little Rock School District has engaged in discussion and inquiry regarding the selection of a site for one of the interdistrict schools approved in the Desegregation Plan. Even as early as Aubrey McCutcheon's tenure as special master in this case, the West Side site was toured and viewed as at least one possibility to be considered when new schools were constructed in the central part of the city along the 1-630 corridor. Later, on June 29, 1989, the Board adopted a resolution to deed West Side to the State Health Department. Costs associated with asbestos removal and other concerns prevented the Health Department from taking possession of the building. What follows is a chronology of the process since March 20, 1991, by which the parties have reached agreement that an interdistrict school should be located on the West Side site. DATE EVENT OUTCOME March 20, 1991 Hearing on School in local District Court The Court was informed that West Side was one of 4 possible sites for construction of a new interdistrict school.* (see fax p.l5) March 21, 1991 Receipt of Court order from Judge Wright Construction at Forest Heights Jr. High could not begin until \"...the Court receives notice from LRSD that a site for Stephens (King) has been selected and approved by all parties, along with definite rationale. plans, site and dates for acquisition. and anticipated dates for the school's construction. completion and opening.\" (see Fax p.8, 9, 10, 11)A r.sw Ki lc Elementary School in downtown Little Rock (14th \u0026amp; Marshall). (See fax p.l2) May 30, 1991 Letter from Chris Heller to the parties and the desegregation monitor The parties and the monitor were notified of our intention to begin asbestos removal and demolition of West Side. The parties and the monitor were asked to notify Mr. Heller if they had any questions or July 19, 1991 Official notification to the Court from Mr. Heller regarding West Side August, 1991 Review of Preliminary study by architectural firm regarding construction of West Side. November 4, 1991 Letter from Dr. Randall L. O'Donnell from ACH regarding its interest in purchasing West Side. concerns actions. response. about There these was no The Court was informed that all parties had agreed to the construction of an interdistrict school II at 14th \u0026amp; Marshall Streets near Arkansas Children's Hospital in Little Rock. II The Court was told that construction would begin no later than June 1992 and be completed no later than August 1, 1993. (see fax p. 5, 6) After discussion of possible renovation, a determination was made that a new school would be necessary for the student population which the school would serve. Conversation between Dr. Steele and Dr. O'Donnell regarding the timing of the request to purchase West Side in light of other events having taken place since March.O V r. to zucrs to discuss plans for King. that the Tns raspcnse was land area small and we could was not initiate construction in the middle of the lot. However, we would attempt to save scroll as much of the work and other building trim as possible and incorporate that into the building design. November 7, 1991 Second letter from Dr. O'Donnell regarding the building of a new King school on the old West Side site. Dr. O'Donnell committed the support of Arkansas Children's Hospital to the District in the event that a building was constructed, (see letter November 7) November 8, 1991 Meeting with Ann Brown and Bob Morgan to discuss interdistrict school sites. The issue was raised by Ms. Brown that problems pertaining to the use of the King site, e.g., parking, would need to be addressed to the Court's satisfaction prior to the District approval to go receiving forward with the project. proposal A for consideration of Woodruff a s one o f the interdistrict schools was discussed. November 11, 1991 Meeting with Ms. Ambrose's committee and Doug Eaton Mr. Eaton was shown pictures of some of the trim items and agreed to buy and incorporate them into the construction of the building.pat\nCUTCCMP ^-3 _ November 19, 1991 by the Ce High Neig' :cc-i T -3 Association to request renovation of West Side and stoppage of demolition plans. Special Board meeting to discuss the concerns of the Central High Neighborhood Association.M C . X J I U  X -* I k X\\J1 X* X s, t 4*J \u0026gt;.\u0026lt;. SR.TCMCU M. rR.DAV. R.A, . 9. CLARK OBt* V. L'O*'^. *'* IVLIAM M. SUTTOn. R.A, A-ea **. HooPE vwOM M, cise-A-*, j-..  oc o. \u0026gt; C'.u.   rBIDAT, EIDHEDGE A CLAEK A rARTNERSHIB QF INOIVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW CIIT \u0026gt;. BMArci*. 1' N tC *411: 3500 FIRST COWMEROIA:. au'uONO WiLl'ah m. oriff THQmaS n. rose, IN III, OM   Cl. S. MOORC .M 1.  f iC.-\u0026lt; :l.272Ou 4 -io. Oi-27 S.-iiA' AMS c. c \u0026gt;.O-A OWN .A- AUX a. CCN-aH !. , A. AHRT W. tun Ka, \u0026gt;. A. . WTC KUI F F N la ftCT. J R.. R.  AM eft COWARb WARR. , BHikXiR mauCOM. R.A. AMES M. SIMOSON, R.A. lERCOiTrt A CAtLCTT. R.A. AMES M. SAXTOr4.  A. . SHERNCRB RU9*CLL lit )ONXI,O M. BAOON. A.A. riLLIAM TMOMAB AMTCR.  MLTKR a, RAUL0ON |l. R.A. lAARY K. COPLIN, P.A. liOHARO 0. TATLOR, P.A. lOSCRH 0, MUPSf. JR.. R.A. LIEAOCTW 4. ROSBCN, R.A. :KRiaTORHER MELLCR. R * 'o^ -i-O ! h. iHARLXa 9CMWn0. .ir. SeOTT H. rUCKCR JOHN OUAYTON ANfiOt.RH OUY ALTON WAOC RRlOe e. AARONCR TUOHAfl MECX J, WICHACL PIOKCNO TONIA R. JONCS OAVie 0. WIL9OM JCFFRCY H. MOOr eOJHBCX WILU'AM 4. SMITW WILLIAM A. ELOnCO^e. JRi WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR.. P. WITR IR* . Dr. Ruth Steele Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 370-1506 Re\nWestside Junior High School Dear Dr. Steele\nI am writing to provide you a chronology of the process by which the parties agreed that an interdistrict school should be located at the Westside Junior High School site. ~ 'g  At a hearing on Kdicu 20, 1951, I told the district court that LRSD and the other parties were considering four potential interdistrict school sites: The Philander Smith Campus\nthe Stephens school site\nthe King The following day, the March 1991 school site\nand the Westside school site. . . _ district court ordered that construction at Forest Heights Junior High School could not begin \"until the Court receives notice from the LRSD that a site for Stephens has been selected and approved by all parties, along with definite plans, rationale, and dates for sits acquisition and anticipated for school's dates the Copies of the relevant pages construction, completion and opening. of the transcript of the March 20, 1991 hearing and the Match 21, 1991 order are attached. In LRSD filed a proposed desegregation plan on May 1, 1991. that plan, the first interdistrict school to be built in LRSD is called \"King\" rather than \"Stephens\". The plan says that LRSD \"proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little  -.A copy of the relevant page of II Rock (14th and Marshall Streets). the May 1, 1991 proposed desegregation plan is attached. H On May 30, 1991 I wrote to the other parties in this case, with a copy to the Monitor, to notify them of LRSD's intention \"tou n. ot.uuux ^1 M M begin asbestos removal and demolition of the old Westside Junior - st'.-ar the rartiss 2*.d the Monitor to notify me ir C 9 Ci iO urr tha senco- A .1' old Westside Z 0 C Z. 5 school ta Icca cr. July IS,\nf ar. inter-dis at 14th \u0026amp; Kar ii We Streets, near Arkansas Children's Hospital, in Little Rock also notified the court that construction would begin no later than June, 1992 and be comoleted no later than August 1, 1993. A copy completed fl of the \"Notice of Site Selection and Construction schedule\" is attached. As you know, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that \"no retreat should be approved\" from the requirement that the parties operate \"the agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed time table\". Slip Op. November 14, 1991, p. 5. 7 9  I recall touring Westside during Aubrey McCutcheon's tenure as  . . \u0026gt; * L - 5^ _ 1  m-U yii 1 AS 1 nrre  special master in this case, but I have not located any pleadings, . z,-------ju.j _iwhich specifically concern other than those described above, -------- The present status is that all Westside Junior High School. xs parties have agreed to the location of an interdistrict school at the Westside Junior School site and the district court has been formally notified of that agreement. Yours very trulv Christo: er slier CJH/k Enc.1 i ' i y y i M y : i 0 0/0^X4 / 'O OM i r 1 RJi L n dUUUMX VX5\u0026gt; TRSCHEV H. FRIOAr, F. s. CVaRR IBCRT V. L'OHT. B.A. LLtAM H. button. F.A FKIDAY, ErDEEnOS * CXXEK PARTNERSHIP OP INOtvlOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOC!ATIONS .M C\u0026gt; W. ICC. B  eo  \u0026lt; attorneys at law 2000 R:R3T COWmCRCIAL BVILDm\u0026lt;3  TC wes- CA*i*Ov 0AN\u0026lt; e. ,C^ 8. M9\u0026lt;8AC C-' I C.    A\nZ U? 722Ot-J * 5^1 H A, dC!- kRVW. auRK.  A. NI8SCT, JR., .A. KMC8 CDWARO hARRK. RHlUkl* MAUCOM, R.A. hMO M.aiMR8OH, R.A. CRCO\u0026lt;TM n. dATUlTT. R.A. LMCa H. SAXTOH, r.a.  hcrmcro RusatuL III ONAUO H, BACONt R.A. IbUIAM tMOMAa BAXTCA. .A. AbTC\" A. RAUVaON H, R-A. aRRV K. CORVIN. R.A. IQHARO O. TatVOR. R.A. OaCRH 8. MVRST. JR.. VJZABCTM J. rObbCN. MRI3VORHCR MKVLtR, R.A. May 30, Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock', AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: 7S 2\n-** * T  7 .  t. tA pO -SL-** J. LS a4CNN H. CHARVCB O3e\u0026gt;\u0026lt;WBN9. JR. marrt a. viort aeOTT H. TWCKCR JOHN CVAVTON ranOOvRm OUT AVTOH WAOC RRtCS C. 9ARON CO THOMAS R. HCCKS J. MICHACV RiQKCNS TONIA JONCB OaVIS D. WIVSQN JCRRRBT H. M9ORC WtVViAM SMITH WtVVIAM A. \u0026lt;VBRE0OG. JR., B. WILLIAM Li terry WILLIAM L Ratton, jr., r.a. 0*1 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Interdistrict School 370-1506 r nxi^Ai M U 4  d S a ' Dear Counsel\nIn accordance with our agreement that the Westside Junior High School site will be the location of a new interdistrict elementary school, the Little Rock School District intends to begin asbestos removal and demolition of the old Westside Junior High School, LRSD will also hire an architect to begin planning the new school so that we can be sure the school will open on the date set forth Please let me know if you have in our proposed desegregation plan. any questions or concerns about these actions. Yours very truly/' Christopher, Heller CJH/k cc: Ann Brown Chip JonesXX Xy yX uy\nxo O'OMl J/0.\nX4/ rniUAi LA MK.'l -*-* L K :\u0026gt;cnooi uist w~ 1^005 V, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EA3TE31I CTSTRIC OF ARKANSAS iSION LR-C-82-8S6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Uli ,1.9 1991 I ,1 1 -.K DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF SITE SELECTION AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE For its notice, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The parties have agreed that the first interdistrict school constructed in LRSD should be called \"King\" rather than \"Stephens\" because the present Stephens school site is under consideration for the location of the second interdistrict school. which would logically be named \"Stephens\". 2. LRSD hereby notifies the court that a definite site for the location of the King Interdistrict school has been selected and approved by all parties. That site is the old Westside school site located at 14th \u0026amp; Marshall Streets, near Arkansas Children's Hospital, in Little Rock. The site is presently owned by the Little Rock School District. The construction of King I p ii B J J  u M X n \u0026lt; X' n\\Ji .M O interdistrict School will begin no later than June 1992 and be 1 p cc than Au: c. fc. 1532 . c\u0026lt; Iha Kino Interdistrict LITTL2 ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Hell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Selection I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Site and construction Schedule has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 19th day of July 1991: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 So^oetlan 2 li ly yi oy: IB '0501 37B:\n147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM L R School Dlst 1^007 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. IC 14 West Third a arr C of Ksn i tor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 9 Christopher Heller bUAloo 3 ii-iy-yi Uy: IB O'BDi 3702147 tKlUAi LA\" HK.'l L K SCHOOL UI St 1^)008 0 5   r COJST filed Mi.? 2 1 ^53J '8A* L. V. CCL C J NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL district no. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS KRS, LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS Q R-P E R Bafor* the Court ia a motion filed by plaintiff Dittla Rock school District (LRSD) seeking approval of construction projects at eight schools. On March 20, 1991 the Court held a hearing on this motion to discuss each construction project and its impact on the desegxegation plane. Construction projects at Rightaell Incentive School, Mitohell incentivs School, Cloverdale Junior High School, Cloverdale Elementary School, Geyer Springs Elementary School, Woodruff Elementary School, and Western Hille Elementary sohool are approved. However, the Court is concerned that at least some of the projectB reveal a certain lack of foresight as to the long range consequences of increasing the capacity of these schools. For example. the plaintiff states in paragraph 19 of its notion that \"[n]o change in the assignment of students to Geyer Spring* . . . will result from the construction project.\" This assertion is contradicted by language in the following paragraph which indicates that students Who reside in the schools attendance zona will oooupy only 65% of the school * s capacity, thus1 i' 11  y 1 '00 Mi .J/0^14/ r Ki PAI LA nK.n L K i\u0026gt;cnooi uist 009 r.ec*^ s:. 5 C3 id* .- ar.i: by tbn 3 3 nsr.: cJ s-\na. O i2 u y\ni / ( / 1 / r a : i .4 M 4 acconunodatecf at neJ.^jibarlng' l^akaflsld Slaniatitafy Schaal which is presently operating at 99% capacity\" (smphasis added). The Court expressed similar concerns during the hearing over the expansion at Woodruff which, after grandfathering ends, will be filled to only 60% capacity by etudenta raaiding in the eehools attendance zone. The propriety of expanding the capacity of a particular school always must be evaluated within the larger context of the desegregation plans and with a view to both imroadiate and long term impact. Since the settlement plan specifies that ''[s)tudents will be assigned to the Elementary Academies by attendance zones,\" LRSD Settlement Plan, Vol, II at 1 (zlsS) , a proposal to expand the capacity of any school must be made with a clear understanding of how ths new capacity will be used and where the students populating the additional space will coma from. The parties to will present to the Court at the end of March 1991 a document delineating proposed \"adjustments\" between the settlement and Tri-District plans. in view of the construction already underway (without ths prior knowledge or approval of ths Court), the Court expects the March transition document to reflect that much oaraful thought has been given to the proposed changes in school capacity. Thadocument must demonstrate clearly the link between any proposed changes in school capacity and (1) the c.Ed V X V* identified needa which justify the capaolty expeneion, (3) the specifio, anticipated use of the expanded apace, and (3) how attendance zones will be redrawn to aaaure that \"all LRSD students ,  Xr_'' r The c curs or s.:. can b3 c nt in a sd 1 a a e  fc a 5 34 tGlying on this provision of the plan and know with certainty which school their children will attend, the court expects that there will ba aojne redrawing of attendance zones so that the proposed changas in school oapaoity logically align with attendance zones end with the numbers of students reaaonably anticipated through M- to-M and desagragation tranefora. However, the Court admonishes the LRSD that, as is the case with busing, the burden of changing schools due to redrawn attendance zones should not fall disproportionately upon black children. The proposed construction at yorast Haights Junior High School will be approved contingent upon (1) inolusion in the March 1991 transition document of the specifie information requested above as it rslates to expansion at Forest Heights and (3) the sBleotion of a definite site for the location of the stephene interdistri^ school. Construction at Foreat Heights may nob begin until the Court receives notice from ths lrsd that a site for steohens has  _ -- . _  ' \"  ~ - been selected and approved by all parties, along with definite P2\u0026gt;n, rationale, and dates for site acguialtion and anbioipated dates for the schools oonstruation, oomplgbion, and opening. If, after a reasonable time, the parties cannot agree on the 3uy\ni / ii lyyi *0*0 Ui 0/D.:i4/ rKIUAl LA** MKM -*-\u0026gt;-\u0026gt; L K ijcnooi VIST l^uil . / :n tsph-87iJl  X?. i ar, nay 'pttitiori the Court rc_ , :.cr. X?.o Qz ft *t.pcr.x a-.. soil / IT IS SO 0KD2KSD thia ^7day of Haroh, 1991. UNZTED STATEB DISTRICT Jti DSS -4- a11 ly yi oy: IS 1'5(11 37B2147 FRIDAY LA'V FIRM L R School Dlst 1^012 Vr ifl uae- it aa the Ingtegucfeienal -*u. rd a:  ch a o 1y-e a-a-nr 19^-01 Stephens and King It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. The new Stephens will house prekindergarten through sixth grades and will have a capacity of -free 96 students.* It sexrves as an Interdistrict School. The new Stephens will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel. The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock CLlth and Marshall Streets). The facility, in anv case,., would be located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. In addition to being an Interdistrict school, an attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and childcare facilities. This location is expected to seirve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. *Include5 four-vear-old program Res 02231, 02232 Page 25811  ly-Hi uy: IS 'O'si.ii jzei'i-iz tKiUAl LAW HK.'l L K scnooi DI st 1^1013 ghe pag^iea-hove had diacuaaiona wifeh pealtoga J The new_Kinq School should be constructed in time for use beginning with the 1993-94 school year. 3'h e ,QfiM Stephens School should be constructed for use beginning with I the 1994-95 school year. I Re\n02232 I Page 2591 ii y  y i i.iy: I.*! 'QOlJl\nj7b\n'147 FRIDAY LA\" FIRM L R School Dlst 1^014 55 area that wo ware considering far that school. When the plan th^h stop\ne:i .or ik -.3 District Court ordsr was i.-i 3y January 2nc we . had the Tri-Diatrict Plan, which also called for the -- a look at the capacity question and the enlargement of incentive schools and the location of a new school in central or east Little Rock. So, at some point, I had some discussions with folks from th Monitoring Office and the parties, and at some point 10 there was a general consensus that even before the Court of 11 Appeals order in December, that a school at the Philander Smith 12 campus would be appropriate under either plan, and since we were 13 essentially waiting for the Court of Appeals to rule and not 14 really pursuing the site location for either plan, we thought 15 we'd go ahead and work towards that one school, because that 16 seemed to ba the one thing that could be dona in terms of 17 construction which would work under either plan. 18 We did as this memo shows, we did have an architect 1$ do several drawings of how a Stophens school would fit on th 20 Philander Smith campus, and talked with President Titus at 21 Philander Smith about that proposal, but we werent -- wo were 22 really, I guess, a little bit premature in what we did. We 23 didn't work out an agreement. We're still now trying to do 1 I 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 w a li r \u0026lt;i\ne c u e G , ef f tl a wn \ni s . 1 I i i I I i I 24 that, and we've got three other sites identified, as well, which 25 could potentially bo used to build one or both of those schools.1119-91 09:19 0501 3762147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM --* L R School Dlst 56  015 1 An:J the other three are ths present Stephens Schoo 1 location, 1 E 1 t Kins Schoo 1 I coition, r.s prise.' Westsica I I 4 i I But theres even some consideration now of perhaps a I 5 project, if we could reach an. agreement with Philander, of a 6 school on the Philander Smith campus which would ba combined 7 with the school on the Westside site with primarily early 8 childhood through some young grade at the Westside site, and the 9 upper elementary grades at the Philander site, because Dr. .Titus 10 has said that his goal is to make that school a very strong 11 teaching school, a teacher education school, and we think that 12 gives us some optimism that we might be able to reach a joint 13 use agreement. 14 15 16 there. THE COURT: Well, I see some interesting prospects I now have some concerns that 1 really want to just call concerns. Some of them will be expressed in the form of 17 questions to you, but others are really just concerns that I 18 want you to talk with Miss Hart and Miss Brown about, because 1$ they arise from difficulties I have with the Settlement Plan 20 21 22 23 24 25 that I'm supposed to be implementing. is grandfathering. And one of these concerns And I'm not going to go into the details right now, but Miss Brown has researched this and has given me a I memo that Im sure she will share with you on ths difficulties of determining grandfathering under the Plan, and when it ends. and also sibling preference in grandfathering. I Iii'iy ai '0'51.11 3 7 (5-.HZ FKID.IV LA\"' FIRM L R School DIst 1^016 1.1 y\n19 S7 i And It is not easy, and I don't think that reasonable : 1 \u0026gt; c u K 1 don't think five reasonable people co I. i read these previsions and all come up with the same conclusion about just what they mean, And so, what I would suggest you do is meet with the other parties and determine what it means and put it in, maybe, your modified Settlement Plan or any other stipulation you might give me that would be incorporated in that Plan so our school patrons will know. just think that that's one thing parents want to know. 10 And 1 personally don't care what it is but, you know, 11 when the deadline is or when youre going to cut it off, but as 12 13 a parent. I know I'd like to know whenever it is, other parents would, too. And I am sure And so, if you can just get together J 4 5 6 7 8 9 I I 1 I 14 on that, it would be good. 15 MR. HELLER? And the intent was - I have talked with 1 6 Ann Brown about that, and I agree that you can't find a cutoff 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 date in the Plan. Our intention, I know, was -- it says, \"those presently enrolled in the schools.\" So our intention was whan the Plan was approved, those presently enrolled there could stay! there, but I think we can do better in the modification to make it clear that that is a onetime event which occurred on December 12th and it's not going to be continued. THE COURT: Okay. preference, sama thing. But anyway, the sibling I believe I brought up sibling 25 preference in the Aerospace Magnet Hearing and, again, this is\\ f I DECEIVED NO'/ -4 1S93 OHi-i'CE Randall L. O'Donnell. Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer Betty A. Lowe. M.D. Medical Director Phillip K. Gilmore. M.S.. MH A Administrator Dwight Hyde. C.PA Chief Financial Officer Larry C. Woodard Director of Development and Community Affairs Blanche Moore Director of Institutional Relations Paul Fitzgerald, Ph.D. Director of Planning \u0026amp; Clinks William J. Bogle Ella Christopher. R.N. Scott Gordon. LC.S.W. Associate Administrators Board of Trustees Doug Brandon President Diane Mackey Vice President James E. Gaston Secretary Robert L Shults Treasurer Charles B. Whiteside III Immediate Past President Joanna Seibert. MD. Chief of Staff Guy Amsler. Jr. Brenda Ashmore John Bale. Jr. Walt C. Bennett David M. Clark Hillary Rodham Clinton Stuart Cobb Wayne Cranford Robert G. Cress Craig Douglass Harry C. Erwin III Herschel H. Friday Betty Gilbert Gerald F. Hamra Mrs. Robert Hickman Dick Holbert MA. Jackson. M.D. Betty A. Lowe. M.D. Chuck Meyer Mrs. Malcolm Moore Kathy Murphy Robert D. Nabholz Randall L. O'Donnell. Ph.D. Bill Puddephatt Skip Rutherford Larry C. Wallace Harry P. Ward. MD. SOOA^arshaii Street, Little Rock, Arkansas /2202-3591, (501) 320-1100 November 4, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Ed.D., Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR Dear Dr. Steele: Arkansas in 72201 Children's Hospital (ACH) has long held an interest obtaining the West Side Junior High School building property as a logical southern completion of our campus. you know, the and As we have had a variety of informal discussions over years regarding possible options for us to obtain property from the Little Rock School District (LRSD). events suggest that your efforts to build a new King tary School have picked up speed\nfinal request of you to consider selling this Recent Elemen-and, thus, we are making a the Vest building and property to Arkansas Children's Hospital Side and constructing the new elementary school on another site within the 1-630 corridor. Our interest has many aspects including, servation among others, preto Little of a building of historical note and significance Rock, and various ACH programs. conversion of this space for use by We are prepared to meet at your convenience to explore purchase of this property. Please call me to let us whether property. or not we can. together. work to preserve our know this I look forward to hearing from you very soon. Sincerely, Randall L. O'Donnell, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer cc: Little Rock School Board Members Emeritus John H. Bale Stanley M. Bauman, Jr. Willis W. Johnson William R, Meeks Louis Rosen Frank D. White A major teaching affiliate of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Randall L O'Dcrneil, Ph.D. Qbef E.-.scutivc Oncer Betty A. Lowe, M.D. A^edkai Director Phillip K. Gilmore, M.S., MH A Auministrator Dwight Hyde. C.PA Otief Financial Officer Larry C. Woodard Director of Oevebpment and Community Affairs Blanche Moore Director of Institutional Relations Paul Fitzgerald, Ph.D. Director of Planning \u0026amp; CSnia William J. Bogle Ella Christopher, RH. Scott Gordon, LCS.W. Associate Administrators Board of Trustees Doug Brandon President Diane Mackey Vice President  James E Gaston Secretary Robert L Shults Treasurer Charles B. Whiteside HI Immediate Past President Joanna Seibert, M.D. Qii^ of Staff Guy Amsler, Jr. John Bale, Jr. Walt C. Bennett Kathy Bentley David M. Clark Hillary Rodham Clinton Wayne Cranford Robert G. Cress Hany C. Erwin III Tern' Erwin Herschel H. Friday Gerald F. Hamra Mrs. Robert Hickman Dick Holbert I'AA Jackson, M.D, Betty A Losve, M.D. Mahlon Martin Chuck Meyer Mrs. Malcolm Moore Kathy Murphy Robert D. Nabholz Randall U O'Donnell, PhD. Bill Puddephatt Skip Rutherford Phil Schmidt Lany C Wallace Hany P. Ward. M.D. Rosie Wilson % iV^fshali Sa LiSSe Reck, .Vkansas 122.Q2 ?,5i\\, (501) 320-1100 November 7, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Ed.D., Superintendent Little Rock School District. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Steele: In follow-up to our phone conversation yesterday afternoon and my letter to you of November 4, I understand that there may be no other option to the Little Rock School District building the King Elementary School at the old West Side Junior High site. I assure you that, should that be the case, Arkansas Children's Hospital would be very supportive of your improving that property. We certainly would be pleased to cooperate in bringing this improvement to our neighborhood. Let us know if there IS assistance we can offer in arriving at a solution. Sincerely, any Randall L. O'Donnell, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer RLO: jcin Emerftus John H. Bale Stanley M. Bauman, Jr. Willis W. Johnson William R. Meeks Louts Rosen Frank D. White A major teaching affiliate of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences\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_906","title":"Zone change maps, North Little Rock, Ark.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Maps--20th Century--Arkansas--Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Zone change maps, North Little Rock, Ark."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/906"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["prints (visual works)"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_809","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, ruling","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":["1990-12-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Court records","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School integration","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, ruling"],"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/809"],"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\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_1019","title":"\"A Curriculum Audit of the Little Rock School District,'' Little Rock, National Curriculum Audit Center, Arlington, Virginia","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_title":["\"A Curriculum Audit of the Little Rock School District,'' Little Rock, National Curriculum Audit Center, Arlington, Virginia"],"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/1019"],"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 and may contain some errors.\nA CURRICULUM AUDIT OFTHE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock, Arkansas Little Rock School D1str1ct Board of Educauon Center Conducted Lnder the Auspices of the NATIONAL Ct:RRICULUM AUDIT CE TER Na110nal Academy for School E.tccu11vcs 180 l orth Moore Street Arlington, Virginia 22:0Q R. Gerald Melton Executive Director c C.-1.C/NASE December, 199\\l AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS NATIONAL ACADEMY FOR SCHOOL EXECUTIVES NATIONAL CURRICULUM AUDIT CENTER Members of the Audit Team: William K. Poston Jr. Lead Auditor Department of Professional Studies Iowa State University Larry E. Frase Professor, Educational Ad.ministration San Diego State University San Diego, California 92116 Charlsie A. Hina Director, Principal Assessment Kentucky Department of Education Frankfurt, Kentucky 41014 Michael K. Maryanski Deputy Superintendent Ravensdale School District Ravensdale. Washington 98051 Mada Kay Morehead Director, Research and Evaluation Kyrene School District Tempe.Arizona 85284, Ames, Iowa 50011 Jayne Hartman Director Research and Evaluation St. Lucie County Schools Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947 Glenn Holzman Research Associate School Improvement Model Projects Ames, Iowa 50011 Clifford E. Mohn Assistant Superintendent Independence Public Schools Independence, Missouri 64055 Constance M. Pace Principal Niagara Falls High School Niagara Falls,NY,14301 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. Background, Purpose and Scope of W orlc Background Purpose Scope of Work II. Methodoloc\ny PAGE 1 2 3 4 The Model for the Curriculum Audit 5 Standards for the Auditor 5 Data Sources 6 Standards for the Curriculum Audit 7 III. Findings of the Auditors 8 Standard 1: The School District Demonstrates Control 8 Finding 1.1: Administrative Stability Has Been Sparse 10 Finding 1.2: Line of Authority is Fragmented and Disordered 12 Finding 1.3: Long Range Planning is Inadequate 17 Finding 1 .4: Board Policies are Outdated 19 Finding 1.5: Board Member Relationships Disrupt Operations 23 Finding 1.6: Board Members Intrude Into Administration 25 Finding 1.7: Professional Negotiations Agreement Limits Control 29 Standard 2: The School District's Objectives for Students 32 Finding 2.1: Melange of Curriculum Guides Exists 33 Finding 2.2: Curriculum Documents Inadequate for Instruction 35 Finding 2.3: Curriculum Development and Revision is Faulty 44 Finding 2.4: Written Curriculum Procedures are Deficient 44 Finding 2.5: Articulation and Coordination is Ineffective 45 Standard 3: The School District's Program Consistency 48 Finding 3.1: Allocation of Resources Inconsistent and Inequitable 49 Finding 3.2: Monitoring Practices are Inconsistent 54 Finding 3.3: Placement of Students is Inconsistent 55 Finding 3.4: Promotion-Retention Practices are Faulty 64 Finding 3.5: Staff Development is Inadequate 65 Finding 3.6: Collection and Use of Data is Erratic 67 Section Standard 4: The School District Use of Results finding 4.1: Testing Program is Inadequate Finding 4.2: Test Scores Show Mixed Trends Finding 4.3: Assessment Program Delimits Decision-Making Standard 5: The School District's Productivity Finding 5.1: Revenues Exceed Expenditures Finding 5.2: Budgeting Limits Participation Finding 5.3: Management Shows Inadequate Control Finding 5.4: Budgeting Follows Traditional Format finding 5.5: Disparities Exist Among Schools Finding 5.6: Productivity is Jeopardized TV. Recommendations of the Auditors Page 68 70 72 86 90 91 92 93 94 94 97 100 Recommendation 1: Create a Sound Board Policy Framework 100 Recommendation 2: Reorganize the Administrative Structure 101 Recommendation 3: Establish Management Stability and Integrity 105 Recommendation 4: Adopt Policy For Improved Governance 107 Recommendation 5: Purge Parts of Professional Negotiations Agreement 108 Recommendation 6: Improve Educational Facilities 109 Recommendation 7: Develop and Implement Functional Curriculum Documents 110 Recommendation 8: Develop Process for Participative Curriculum Management 112 Recommendation 9: Consolidate Curriculum Functions 114 Recommendation 10: Establish Functional Assessment and Expand Testing 115 Recommendation 11: Establish Consistency and Equity in Programs 117 Recommendation 12: Modify Budgeting Practices 119 Recommendation 13: Develop and Use Long Range Planning 121 V. Summary Appendix A: Curriculum Management Policy Model Appendix B Background of the Auditors 123 124 126 Table of Contents: Lanie Rock Cumrulum Audit Pagdi O December 21. 1990 Exhibit Number: Il.1.1.1 Ill.1.1.1 lll.1.2.1 III.1.3.1 ill.1.3.2 III.1.4.1 Ill.2.1.1 III.2.2.1 III.2.3.1 III.3.1.1 III.3.1.2 ill.3 .1.3 IIl.3.1.3 III.3.3.1 Ill.3.3.2 Ill.3.3.3 Ill.3.3.4 III3.3.5 ill.3.3.6 IIl.3.3.7 III.3 .3.8 III.3.4.1 IIl.3.4.2 III.4.1.1 III.4.2.1 III.4.2.2 III.4.2.3 III.4.2.4 III.4.2.5 III.4.2.6 III.4.2.7 III.4.2.8 III.4.2.9 III.4.2.l 0 IIl.4.2.11 Ill.4 .2.12 III.4 .2.13 ill.4.2.14 III.4.2.15 III.4.3.1 Ill.5.1.1 III.5.1.2 TABLE OF EXHIBITS Title o[ Exhibit Page A Schematic View of Quality Control 5 Little Rock Superintendents 11 Current Table of Organization 16 Employee Percentage of Black Children 18 Employee Percentage of White Children 18 Individual Board Requests 28 Rating of Curriculum Guides 37-40 Summary of Curriculum Guide Ratings 42 Distribution of Curriculum Guides 43 Comparisons of Library Books 50 Comparisons of JHS Faculty Racial Composition 52 Comparisons of Teacher Experience in Selected Schools 53 Comparisons of JHS Student Racial Composition 54 Placement Criteria Comparisons: HS Gifted and Talented 56 Placement Criteria Comparisons: Elementary Gifted and Talented 57 Regular and Enriched JHS English Racial Distributions 59 Regular and Enriched HS English Racial Distributions 60 Comparisons of Blacks in Special Education and Total School 62 Comparisons of Special Education and Total School Percentages 62 Annual Long Tenn Suspension Rates 63 Annual Drop Out Rate Comparisons 63 Percentage of Grade 1 Students Retained 64 Comparisons Between Schools in Retention of Grade 1 Sr..:dents 65 Matrix of Tests Administered in the Little Rock School District 71 Comparisons of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 4 Reading 72 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 7 Reading 74 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 10 Reading 74 MAT-6 Reading Achievement Scores 75 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 4 Math 76 MAT-6 Math Achievement Scores 77 MA T-6 Language Achievement Scores 78 Comparisons of Black and White Students: MA T-6 79 Change in Percentile: Cohort Groups 80 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: AMPT Math 81 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: AMPT Reading 82 High School Ranks on American College Test 83 Comparison of Little Rock Schools on American College Test 84 Comparison of Little Rock Schools on Scholastic Aptitude Test 84 Comparison of Little Rock Schools on SAT: Math 85 Schools with Less Than 85% Passing: AMPT 87 Revenues and Expenditures 91 Revenues and Expenditures Trend 92 Table of Contents: Little Rock Curriculum Audit Page iii  December 21. 1990 Exhibit Number: lII.5.3. l III.5.6.1 Ill.5.6.2 IV .2.1.1 Table of Exhibits, Continued: Title of Exhibit Sample of Teacher Changes Student Enrollment Trends Private School Enrollments Recommended Table of Organization PHOTOGRAPHS VIEW Little Rock School District Board of Education Center Central High School Elementary Art Student in Action Underutilized Library During School Hours Kindergarten Children at Work Elementary School Colleagues Another Underutilized Library During School Hours Children Sorting and Classifying Objects Caution: Children on Task Small Group Reading Lesson Boy and a Book Regular English: Pulaski Heights Junior High School Enriched English: Pulaski Heights Junior High School Elementary School Classroom Instruction High School Students on Computers Elementary Pupils Completing Worksheets PAGE Title 1 10 14 20 25 31 34 36 46 51 58 58 69 95 109 Page 93 98 98 104 Table of Contents: Little Rock Cumculu.m Audit Pia\u0026lt; iv o Dca:mbcr 21, 1990 I. BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE OF WORK. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit CCl N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page I This document constitutes the final report of a curriculum audit of the Little Rock School District, Little Rock, Arkansas. The audit was requested by the Little Rock Superintendent of Schools and was commissioned by the Little Rock Board of Directors in July of 1990. The audit was conducted on site in Little Rock, Arkansas, during the time periods of September 16-21, 1990, and October 3-4, 1990. BACKGROUND Little Rock is the capital city of Arkansas. Located in the central part of the state, it comprises an important commercial center for the surrounding region, and is home for several major national corporations. The Arkansas River, the moderate climate, and an energetic, resourceful population have helped this city grow and thrive in industrial, service, and economic enterprises over its history. The principal industries in the region are agriculture and commercial distribution of goods and services. The Little Rock School District has served the Little Rock community for nearly 125 years. It is the largest school district in the state, and has 51 schools serving over 25,000 students. The annual budget of the school district exceeds $100 million, and the district employs nearly 3500 people, including about 2000 teachers. Central High School  Little Rock, Arkansas Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 2 The Little Rock School District has been in the process of providing equal educational opportunity for all of its students, and the superintendent states that academic growth and progress is a major focus throughout all district programs. The school district has elementary schools (grades preschool - sixth grade), junior high schools (grades seven through nine), and high schools (grades ten through twelve). A seven-member Board of Directors, elected by voters from seven geographic zones, govern the Little Rock School District. Directors serve for three years on a staggered schedule. Current members of the Board include the following individuals: Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Board President Ms. Oma Jacovelli, Board Vice President Ms. Robin Armstrong, Member Ms. Patricia Gee, Member Mr. William D. Hamilton, Member Mr. John E. Moore, Member Mr. James L. Rutherford, Member PURPOSE The newly-structured Board and brand-new administrative team of the Little Rock School District have expressed a desire to provide the highest quality of educational service to its community by requesting this assessment of services and programs of the district. Although most of the factors examined were preexistent to the new Superintendent, the audit was requested to help the administration implement changes necessary to be productive in instruction and fiscal management. The Little Rock School District conveyed this desire to the National Curriculum Audit Center, Arlington, Virginia to undergo a curriculum audit to objectively analyze and assess their efforts toward productivity. The Little Rock School District would be then able to determine if their efforts have been appropriate and effective, and if there are any areas for growth or improvement. Hopefully, this would tie the district's purposes to the responsibilities of the leadership team. A curriculum audit reveals the degree to which the officials of the Little Rock School District and professional staff have developed and implemented a sound, valid, and operational system of curriculum management. Such a system would enable the Little Rock School District to make maximum utilization of its human and financial resources in the education of its students. If such a system were implemented and fully operational, it would also ensure that the Little Rock School District taxpayers, and the State of Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 0 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 3 Arkansas, that their financial support had been well used under the conditions in which the school district functioned. SCOPE OF WORK The curriculum audit is a process which was first used in the Columbus, Ohio, Public Schools in 1979. The audit was provided through the auspices of the auditing firm of Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell. The audit is based upon generally accepted ideas pertaining to what it takes to provide effective instruction and curricular delivery, some of which have been popularly referred to as \"effective schools research.\" Curriculum audits have been performed in many states including Kentucky, Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vrrginia, California, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Arizona, Illinois, Connecticut, and Arkansas. The methods used in the curriculum audit have been reported in educational professional literature in the past decade, and also described at many national seminars and conventions. Curriculum audits are now conducted by professionally trained auditors, who are officially certified by the National Curriculum Audit Center. The National Curriculum Audit Center is housed within the National Academy for School Executives, a division of the American Association of School Administrators, in Arlington, Virginia, in the Washington, D.C. area. This audit for the Little Rock School District was conducted under a contract between the Little Rock School District and the AASA-NASE National Curriculum Audit Center. II. METHODOLOGY THE MODEL FOR THE AUDIT Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. Dccember21, 1990 Page4 The model for a curriculum audit is shown in Exhibit Il.l. The model has been published in Curriculum Management, by Fenwick W. English, and published by Charles C. Thomas, Publishers (1987). Quality control in a school district assumes that at least three elements must be present in the district's operational and planning functions for it to be successful: (1) First, a work standard must be defined (policy, goal, objective), (2) Secondly, activities and operations of personnel and work must be directed toward carrying out or accomplishing the work standard (or policy, goal, objective), and (3) Third, and most importantly, measurement (feedback) must be obtained for determining how well the district is reaching or attaining its established standards. Over time, a school district must be able to track progress toward attaining more and more of its established standards within its financial constraints. Basically then, the school district (and in this case, the Little Rock School District) becomes more and more proficient at its essential tasks, and it can demonstrate the \"spiral\" of upward attainment publicly. Within the Little Rock School District, and its governance and operational structure, curricular quality control should reveal the presence of: (1) a written (planned) curriculum which can be effectuated into the work of teachers in classrooms, (2) a taught (implemented) curriculum which is shaped by the written curriculum, and (3) a measured (tested) curriculum which consists of testing or assessment tools of pupil learning which are linked to both the written (planned) and taught (implemented) curricula. In this way, the Little Rock School District, and any other school district can get better at delivering teaching and learning as time goes by. Exhibit Il.1 A SCHEMA TIC VIEW OF Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit \u0026lt;:l N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 5 CURRICULAR QUALITY CONTROL STANDARDS FOR THE AUDITOR IHE WIITTII CIJIIICULUW [WDll PU.ii CIJIIJCUL.U QUALIIY CDHTlDL THI TISTID ClJIRIClJLUW (WUSUIEMEJl'T) Principles which govern a curriculum audit, which are not unlike those of a financial audit, include the following: 1. Technical Expertise. Auditors must have had experience in conducting school district affairs at all the levels audited, and they must have demonstrable understanding of the tacit and contextual clues of sound curriculum management. 2. Independence. Auditors must have no vested interest in the findings or outcomes of the audit. 3. Objectivity. The auditors must be able to verify observable events in the audit with documents, interviews, and site visitation. Essential facts of the audit must be triangulated by the auditors. 4. Consistency. The auditors must use essentially the same methcxls used from one audit to the next. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (C) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 6 5. Materialicy. The auditors must exercise broad authority in exploring, investigating, examining, and selecting for analysis all aspects of the operation being audited which are more important than others. 6. Full Disclosure. The auditors must reveal all information that is important to the users of the audit, such as the Board of Education (Governing Board or Board of Directors), the administration, the teaching staff, students, parents and taxpayers. DATA SOURCES A variety of data sources are ordinarily used during a curriculum audit to determine if the elements of effective teaching and learning are being delivered, and if the elements are appropriately interrelated. The audit process also establishes whether or not pupil learning has improved as the result of effective utilization of curricular quality control. The major sources for the audit of the Little Rock School District included the followin2: 1. Documents. These consisted of Board policies, curriculum guides, reports, memoranda, budgets, state reports, accreditation documents, budgets, or any other written source of information which would reveal connections between elements of the planned, implemented, and tested curricula. 2. Interviews, Interviews were conducted to obtain further information on the same elements and their interconnections. Interviews were held with most of the members of the Board of Education, top level administrative staff, building principals, other administrators, teachers, parents, and other relevant persons. 3. Site Visitations. Site visitations were made to reveal the context in which curriculum is being implemented and to obtain important contextual reference information for contrast with documents or unusual working conditions. The auditors visited all schools in the Little Rock School District. STANDARDS FOR THE CURRICULUM AUDIT Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 7 The auditors utilized five standards against which to compare. verify, and comment upon the Little Rock School District's existing curricular management practices. These standards have been extrapolated from an extensive review of management principles and practices, as well as utilized in the previous audits in many other school districts around the country. While any set of such standards does not reflect perfection or an ideal management system, the standards do represent working characteristics that any complex organization should possess in being responsive and responsible to its clientele. A school district that is using its human and financial resources for the greatest benefit of its students is a district that is able to establish clear objectives, examine alternatives, select and implement alternatives, measure results as they develop against established objectives, and adjust its efforts so that it achieves a greater share of those objectives over time. The five standards employed in the Little Rock School District curriculum audit included the following: 1. The school system is able to demonstrate its control of resources, programs and personnel. 2. The school system has established clear and valid objectives for students. 3. The school system has documentation explaining how its programs have been developed, implemented, and conducted. 4. The school system uses the results from district designed or adopted assessments to adjust, improve, or terminate ineffective practices or programs. 5. The school system has been able to improve its productivity. III. FINDINGS Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit :, N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 8 Standard 1: The School District is Able lo Demonstrate Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel Although educational program control (direction) and accountability are often shared among different components of a school system, fundamental control rests with the school board and top-level central administrative staff. Quality control is a fundamental element and is one of the major premises of local educational control in a well managed school system. The critical premise involved is that the will of the electorate is carried out by the local governing board by establishment of local priorities within state law and regulations. The local governing board is the responsible body for accountability to the general public. Through the development and construction of policy, a local school board provides the focus to direct the operations of a school system through delegation to administrative staff. In this way the expression of popular will is assured, and the district is enabled to be responsive to its patrons and clients. It also enables the system to meaningfully assess and utilize student learning as a critical factor in determining its success. Although educational program control and accountability are often shared among different components of a school system, fundamental control of, and responsibility for, the operations of a school system rest with the governing board and its top level management staff. What the Auditors Expected To Find In The Little Rock School District A school district meeting Standard 1 would be able to demonstrate the existence of:  A clear set of policies that reflect state requirements and local program goals and the necessity to use achievement data to improve school system operations *Documentation of sound planning by the Board and top- level management staff for the attainment of goals over time  An administrative structure that was functional and facilitated the design and delivery of the district's curriculum *Sound curriculum coordination and articulation within all school buildings and across all levels within the school system Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 NA.S.E. December 21 . 1990 Page 9 * A direct, uninterrupted line of authority from the school board/superintendent to principals. teacher leadership roles, and teachers * A clear mechanism to control change and innovation within the school system * Administrative and staff responsiveness to school board policies, currently and over time. What the Auditors Found in the Little Rock School District The auditors found a fairly secure school system that has weathered some very difficult times and that has come through many complexities and challenges of desegregation. The Superintendent is relatively new to this position, but has considerable experience in administration within the state. The Board has recently gone through an election with resultant restructuring of its leadership, and individually the members of the Board all indicate commitment and allegiance to the improvement of educational opportunity in Little Rock. As testimony to the district's efforts toward improvement, the district recently received voter approval of additional financial support for its educational program. Community support seems to have turned in favor of the school district with few exceptions. Overall, the Little Rock School District is a rather well-run school district in terms of practices and general operations. The Little Rock School District has enjoyed a reputation among parents and the public that finances are generally managed prudently and usually in the best interests of student . The Little Rock School District appears to have benefited from the lengthy service of some key persons, including faculty and other employees. Yet, there are many areas where improvements can be made, and that is the purpose of this audit. The Board and Superintendent agreed to have the curriculum audit conducted in the Little Rock School District, precisely to find the areas where the district falls short of its intentions for quality control in educational operations. The audit is not intended to itemize or list the virtues of the Little Rock Schools. There are many aspects of the district which deserve commendation, reinforcement, and continued support. However, the audit aims to focus only on some of the problems incurred in quality control, and there are a number of those. For example, the auditors found inadequate direction and precepts for management of the district's curriculum\ninsufficient long range planning for change\nand uneven monitoring of educational program delivery in schools. The findings follow in detail: Fledgling Art Student in Action Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 10 Finding 1.1 Top-level and building-level administrator stability has been sparse in the Little Rock School District. A measure of stability in school districts is found in the average length of tenure among the districts' chief executive officers over time. Surprisingly, the Little Rock School District has had (QJ.rr_ different superintendents in the four year period from 1986-1990, resulting in a remarkable dearth of stability in top level leadership. In the last twelve years, the governing board has appointed five individuals to the position of superintendent or interim superintendent. One person was appointed to the chief executive officer's position twice, but not during consecutive years. The turnover rate has been highest during the last 39 months with three individuals occupying the position of superintendent (see Exhibit Ill.1.1). Exhibit III.1.1 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 11 SUPERINTENDENTS IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: 1978-90 NAME SCHQQL YEAR Mr. Paul Masem 1978-82 Dr. Ruth Steele 1982 Dr. Ed Kelly 1982-87 Mr. Vance Jones 1987 Dr. George Cannon 1987-89 Dr. Ruth Steele 1989-Present As if to exacerbate the situation, there has been a 52% turnover in administrative positions between the principal and superintendent levels since school year 1986-87 and 41 % since school year 1988-89. The rapid turnover in upper level management positions, particularly the superintendency, is viewed by teachers, administrators, and community members as a major weakness for the district and has resulted in cynicism and a lack of confidence. The following quotations reflect these attitudes:  \"The district has suffered from changes (turnover in superintendency) and it gives the public a strong sense of instability.\"  \"This superintendent is too good to last very long.\"  \"Don't know from day to day if they are going to be there.\"  \"This is a rudderless ship''  \"We'll just play 'around' with (this) directive because it will change next year.\"  \"They (superintendents) all disappear sooner or later.\"  \"It's hard to work in all the turmoil -- removal of superintendents.\"  \"Becomes confusing with new initiatives from each new superintendent.\"  \"They all have their own program and there is no follow-up.\" Exceedingly high turnover in the superintendent's position precludes leadership continuity in the Little Rock Public Schools. The turnover led to excessive turnover in other central office administrative positions, and along with court decisions regarding desegregation, may be chiefly responsible for the following organizational dysfunctions: tack of an effectively used strategic long range plan\n*lack of teacher trust in the board, administration, or school curriculum programs\nsense that change is based on politics, not what's best for the youth\nconfusion and cynicism among community members\n*disorientation and conflict among board members about curricula and operations\nconfusion among school district staff, and patrons upon roles and responsibilities\nand *inadequate board policies, regulations, and adherence to board policies in the following areas: evaluation of operations, programs, instruction, and services, policy AF\nevaluation of school board operational procedure, policy AF A\nLittle Rock School District Curriculum Audit c, N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 12 evaluation of superintendent. policy AFB. item 3: evaluation of instructional programs, policy AFE \u0026amp; IM\nschool board member ethics, policy BBF, paragraphs 6 \u0026amp; 11\nevaluation of the superintendent, item 3, policy CBG\nreview of new initiatives and curriculum offerings, policy IFB\nand approval of curricula prior to addition of new courses, policy, IFD. Employees and community members search intensely for definitive direction from a superintendent backed by the Board of Directors. This can only come with a long-term superintendent working in harmony with the board of directors. Without that support, the staff will \"do their own thing\" and essentially ignore administrative directives. The result is confusion and a weak. disjointed curriculum throughout the district. Finding 1.2. Linc of authority and direction of the district's curriculum management function is disordered and fragmented.  Administration of curriculum activities, including design and delivery of instruction, is a critical function in an effectively operating school system. In Little Rock, the administrative functions were examined by the auditors, and several criteria were utilized to determine the level of appropriate organizational procedures and the level of effectiveness in managing the curriculum affairs of the school district. Primarily, the auditors found that the top managerial personnel were well prepared for their assignments\nhowever, incongruence and disorderliness of direction was evident among individuals assigned responsibility for supervision of the educational activities of the district. For example, the following points were noted: Parents, teachers, principals, and board members complained of the \"bureaucratic\" difficulti in communicating within the district regarding educational issues. Some felt that the administration couldn't make any contribution to the improvement of instructional quality because of the disheveled lines of communication. Board members and key instructional personnel unaware of some course modifications at the junior high and high school levels prior to implementation, and principals often reported a dearth of supervision and direction for day-to-day operations of the instructional program. Many principals did not identify supervisory activities germane to improvement of instruction, and accepted little or no direct responsibility for key instructional tasks and duties (staff development, selection of teacher materials, disaggregation of assessment data, supervision of teachers, etc.). Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 0 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 13 Key administrative personnel indicated little or no involvement in setting budget and programmatic priorities of the district. Infrequent administrative collaboration was evident in long range planning, staff development program design and implementation, and assessment utilization and planning. Teachers and parents lamented the inadequate support given to improvement of the quality of instruction, lack of articulation between grade levels, comparability with other schools and school districts, and the impotence of teacher and parent participation in instructional program development. Some principals took uneven notice of ineffective and inadequate classroom patterns and teaching activities. Observed teaching activities which reflected very low power teaching techniques and feeble and ineffectual instructional activities included the following: a. Elementary classrooms with inordinately large amounts of student \"seat work\" and exceptionally few direct instructional activities. b. Grouping practices which demonstrated linle flexibility, insubstantial rationale, inequity and ineffectuality. c. Teaching with inadequate reference to recently adopted curriculum guides and excessive use of the text book for direction. d. Librarians presiding over severely underused library facilities. Few examples were found where librarians actively teach the student body under their direction on a regularly scheduled basis. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 14 High School Library During School Hours e. A vast majority of classrooms with no interactive, cooperative, or direct instructional activity. (in most classrooms visited, students were doing \"seat work\" which was busy work with worksheets or workbooks or textbooks and too few teachers were observed actually teaching a lesson). These observations point out the overall ineffectiveness of the administrative organization to respond to educational needs and to implement growth producing instructional supervision. Learning is not likely to get any better, and it could continue to get worse, unless administrative direction, expertise, and intervention is provided in the educational programs of the Little Rock School District. Moreover, the administrative organization is dysfunctional. As shown in the attached organization chart, organizational precepts of quality are lacking. The auditors examined the organization of the Little Rock School District with the following criteria and principles: 1. 2. 3. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21 . 1990 Page 15 Principles of Sound Organizational Management Span of Control Effective supervision on a day to day basis requires direct responsibiliry for not more than 7-12 employees Chain of Command No employee should have more than one supervisor Logical Grouping of Tasks of similar nature should be grouped together Functions 4. Separation of Line and Line positions (principals, teachers) should be separate from Staff curriculum design, and program assessment functions 5. Scalar Relationships All positions shown at the same level must have similar responsibiliry, authority and compensation 6. Full Inclusion All central functions, particularly functions facilitative of qualiry control need to be included in the organizational structure In summation, the auditors reviewed the Little Rock School District Organization Chart (on following page), and made the following determinations: 1. Instructional supervision of teaching and learning is inadequate and ineffective. Principals are not appropriately supervised, and support for school operations is inadequate. 2. The superintendent's span of control is too great for qualiry control. 3. Responsibility for curriculum design and assessment use functions are woefully absent. 4. Scalar relationships and the chain of command are inappropriate and inaccurate. Job roles are confused and lines of communication are obscured. 5. Instructional functions for quality control are not appropriately included. Overall, the organizational relationships in Little Rock Schools are insufficiently defined and inadequately configured to offer sound and appropriate leadership for improved teaching and learning in the district. I Planning, Research, I \u0026amp; Evaluation Manager for Support Services Budge! Development Purchasing Data Processing Transportation Food Services Plant Services I Board of Directors I 1 Superintendent I Communications I j Deputy Superintendent I I I I Contract/Labor jl I Human Resources 11 Contr I Relations I New Futures I oiler I I Associate Superintendent Associate Superl -- ----------- for Educational Programs ~--------- for Desegregation ntendent Monitor\u0026amp; Stall Development . elopment I I I I I Assistant I Principals I I Superintendents Educational Programs: English PE/Athletics Social Studies Exceptional Children Malh Vocational Ed. Reading Adult Ed. Science Instructional Technology Foreign Language Library Media Programs Art/Music Stall Development Ing \u0026amp; Program Dev I ____ _J Student Assign ments ms/ nlstration Federal Progra Grants Admi Pupil Personne I Services Magnet Revie w Committee Community Pr ograms (JTPA. VIPS ) Early Childho od Programs t'\"\" n ~ E\ntrl .... ::,\n) ,_. 0 IC t:) 0 ~, 0.... n IC '\"1 ~ --'CJQ en CGl-l r.i n E!. = 0 N 0- r....i. 0 0 t ... 0= I:'\"\"' ... no ::r - ~~ 6 C - z ::: 0 ~  :,:0\n:t\u0026gt; $l (./),... P1 w ::,- 0 ~ \"~ 0 8\n .~. 5. ~ ~ n C :\n3. _., n C 0 2:\" .\",C 3 \"c1 \u0026gt; C .\"..\".. ~ II II Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit !tl N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 17 FINDING 1.3 Implementation of long-range planning or strategic vision is inadequate to direct efforts to improve quality of the Little Rock School District. The auditors found that \"everything is a crisis\" in the Little Rock Schools, and \"nothing is routine.\" Wellthought out plans ahead of time are incomplete, despite hundreds of pages of \"plans.\" The following plans were examined by the auditors: Tri-District Desegregation Plan for the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District (January, 1990) Long Range Plan for School Facilities - Little Rock, Arkansas (September 1988) Proposed Planning Report, 1986-87 - 1991-92 (August 1985) The auditors found that the plans were not instrumental in guiding the day-to-day operations of the Little Rock School District. Most Board members and administrators did not indicate any acquaintance with the provisions of the planning, nor any involvement with delivery of the planned activities. Dese~e~ation Plan. An exception to ineffective planning is the planning pursuant to desegregatio activities, where the district desegregation staff gathers a number of activities under its umbrella. However, the desegregation plan confounds many school operations, not so much from its intentions or purposes as from its implementation. Teachers and principals reported too many surprises in educational changes attributable to the desegregation plan. Board members and parents complained about the abolishment of homogeneous classes (tracking) at the secondary level, indicating little acquaintance with the sound and extensive rationale for such practice. Communication and involvement of district stakeholders (parents, teachers, others) is insufficient to foster appropriate \"ownership\" of the plan throughout the school community. Control in implementing the plan was inadequate as reflected in these findings: Staff development is prescribed to \"focus ... (the staff) to address the racism reality.' A noble goal, but in operation, the auditors found no teacher or principal who was aware of a comprehensive needs assessment of staff employees designed to match training with individual differences among teachers or administrators. Student assignment was planned to provide impartial and nonpolitical procedures to \"desegregate schools .. :, but many complaints were heard by the auditors of unfairness and partiality in implementing the student assignment process. As an example, magnet schools were alleged to have a disproportionate Little Rock School District Cumculum Audit \u0026lt;0 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 18 number of children of employees. To evaluate the allegation, a sample of the population was tested by the auditors with the following results: Employee Percentage of Black Children - Gibbs Magnet 1990 p6.95% 93.05% Employee Percentage of White Children - Gibbs Magnet1990 92.47% D Employees  Other D Employees  Other The distribution of a disproportionate number district employee's children among magnet schools would be an indicator of inequitable or political practices. The results are inconclusive with just one school, but the perception (or misperception) among community members remains in place and the problem demands resolution. Little Rock School Distnct Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 19 Of course. the plan is in response to orders from the U.S. District Court, and its evaluation of effectiveness rests with those charged with such responsibility. Nevertheless, the auditors found that the desegregation plan affects many areas of operation, but it does not serve as a rationale instrument of guidance for actions among school personnel as it should. The purpose of strategic plans is to organize and focus district resources to meet future student needs. A strategic vision is the organization's vision of its desired future, and thereby provides guidance for curriculum decisions. Such a plan provides a district with criteria and processes for confronting problems and managing the district. At this time, the district has no strategic or formal comprehensive plan for education in the Little Rock School District. Without a well developed plan, the Little Rock Schools will be directed by crisis and bullied by politi activists. Finding 1.4. Board policies are outdated and generally ineffective in establishing curricular quality contro1. The auditor examined the following policies of the Little Rock School District: Policy Code Content Date AD Philosophy June 26, 1980 ADA Mission Statement January 26, 1984 AFA Evaluation of Board June 26, 1980 AFE Evaluation of Instructional Program June 26, 1980 CH Policy Implementation March 24, 1983 GCL Staff Development June 26, 1986 IF Curriculum Development October 29, 1981 IFD Curriculum Adoption Nov. 19, 1981 L\"M: Program Evaluation Dec. 17, 1981 The policies fail to establish a framework for sound curriculum planning, configuration of courses, specific curricular outcome statements, relationship of testing or test data to such outcomes, or lead to the creation of any plan reviewed by the auditor that could be called comprehensive, despite the fact that the Little Rock board policy (AD-#1) required one. The policies did not indicate or mention any sense of curricular priorities which could be measurable or related to content.  l ,ttlc Rock \u0026lt;\nchool D1stnC1 Curriculum Audit ~ '.'-i .. .\n.S.E. Decemt\u0026gt;er 21. 1990 Pag:c 20 No clear operational guideline cxi,1- for tht: dcv, it1pmcnt , ir evaluation :if curriculum in the district. Board Policies (AD, AD:\\), The Phii,1~oph) \u0026lt;10J \\! i~~ion \\tatcmenl arc \\!,t:neral and somewhat vague statements. For instance, no ch.:a1 direCLion i5 offered [or measuring the requirement that \"the instructional program should provide each student with lhc: opportunity for maximum intellectual and inter-personal development, whcn:in each student compdes with his own potential. These statements were not cited once by anyone a~ valuable references in curriculum decision making. Board Policy (* AF A), Evaluation of School Board Operational Procedure. indicates that an appropriate plan should be in operation for many areas including policy. However. operational procedures as they relate to curriculum policy are not available. Specific criteria for the development of curriculum objectives and an appraisal system of such has not been established. Kindergarten Children At Work Board policy (AFE), Evaluauon of Instructional Programs. is concerned with the purpose of evaluating instruction. This is to be done by determining the educational needs and providing information for planning. Checks of strengths ,rnd v. eaknesses of the programs must he undertaken. However, there is no mention of what the definition of needs. ,trengths or weaknesses are. \\!or is there any direction as to the method which should be used 1r\nproviding, information for planning. The policy also requires that evaluation of instructional program be programs in terms of community requirements\". What does Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit \u0026lt;0 NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 21 \"suitability ... in terms of community requirement\" mean. Does it refer to the desegregation plan? Or does it refer to changing needs of occupational pursuits and directions in the community? There is no clear method as to how planned instructional programs are uniformly evaluated. Board policy (CH), Policy Implementation, requires that administrators and supervisors are responsible for informing staff members of existing policies and are to see that such are implemented. However, many sources indicated that policies and regulations are not effectively communicated. Thus a direct, unintem1pted line of authority does not exist. Often times when directives and procedures are communicated, with the intent to achieve an \"effective and efficient\" running school system, there has been evidence that opposition has occurred which leads to confusion. For example board members were aware of the implementation of a new program, \"Learning Foundations.\" Even though the program is in place, continuous attempts by some board members to increase opposition to this program were apparent. Even though the policy indicates that \"all board members, district employee, and students are expected to abide by (them).\" Board policy (GCL), Staff Development, deals with technical assistance to employees in the implementation of curriculum. However, during many interviews with administrators, teachers and noninstructional employees it was apparent that limited training is actually offered. Need surveys, long range planning, training of staff prior to implementation of new initiatives are not adequately undertaken. Staff described the district's efforts as \"knee jerk and window dressing\". Assistant principals, for instance felt that they were not given ample preparation or training in how the multi-cultural curriculum guides were to be used. However, they were expected to evaluate instructional staff on the use of such documents. Board policy (IF), Curriculum Development, requires that the superintendent establish \"curriculum committees for the study of curriculum improvements.\" However, minimum building level staff are actually involved in the development of curriculum. Presently, a ratio has been established with the union, as to the number of teachers and central office administrators who will make up these committees. Building level administrators are omitted even though they have involvement in evaluating the actual implementation of said curriculum. There were also instances when central office administrators solely developed changes in curricular pursuits because of time constraints. An example of this was when the Board forced an immediate implementation of a gifted and talented program, over the recommendation for a three-year phase-in by a community advisory committee, which caused severe financial and educational difficulties. With the occurrence of minimum or no building level staff involvement the final results produce what has been Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (rJ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 22 referred to as an average to below standard curriculum which is not used in an effective manner. Teachers and other staff members are apprehensive and somewhat resistive to implementation. In some schools, teachers continue to use former guides even though programs have changed. The expectation that \"all teachers will make a contribution to curriculum committee work\" is not being followed. Board policy (IFD), Curriculum Adoption, sets forth the requirement that the superintendent shall \"suggest and implement administratively, changes and improvements in curriculum offerings\" but such \"shall be reported to the Board prior to implementation\". Several board members indicated that changes in program/course offerings were never reported to them, for example PAL, or the gifted and talented program. Board members were not aware that there was a course adoption policy. This policy has been in effect since November, 1981. Additionally, during interviews held with the Biracial Committee, parents and board members, evidence was gathered that curricular sequences have been changed abruptly, with little planning taking place. Student courses of study have been effected without broad participation in the decisions, and this has created problems for students attempting to complete their requirements for graduation. Board policy (IM), Program Evaluation, requires that the district must \"establish an evaluation process\" in order to obtain objective information regarding instructional program and the performance of personnel\". However, no standardized framework has been established for this to occur. No uniform method exists of how instructional programs and personnel performance are to be evaluated. During interviews the auditors found only one central office administrator who developed and consistently used documents to evaluate principals assigned to her department. The auditors found no evidence of coordination or articulation among other central office administrators to evaluate in the same manner. In fact, several principals complained that they had been evaluated by a top administrator from the central office, despite the fact that the evaluator had not visited their school during the period of their evaluation. This policy further indicates that an established evaluation process must be conducted by \"professionals, but little direction is provided. o evidence existed to indicate that there was use of evaluation data by the board or district to determine educational needs. Evaluation and resultant changes often seem to be tied to the desegregation plan. The policy also indicates there should be a relationship between stated goals and actual accomplishments. Goals and long range outcomes change often thus limiting the possibility of such correlation. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ti) N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 23 The policy further required the district to use evaluation to \"improve the performance of personnel\". However, personnel are not involved or informed of appropriate training. Personnel reported this hampers the development of their skills. No teachers reported direction from supervisors as to training tied to perceived or measured effectiveness in the classroom. Throughout the district many schools and staff members were found \"doing their own thing\" without coordinated direction from the school administration, thus established control was lacking, and consi~tency and guidance were absent.. The district is unable to tell whether or not a program, a teacher, or a set of learning materials is effective or productive. No standardized methods have been established by which district staff can use assessment data to evaluate student progress, and the district lacks a way to assess the adequacy of the curriculum or its comparability. The board has not established any policy which requires curriculum to be developed in the district that was internally consistent or demonstrated coherency around a core. The district has not established a definition of a core curriculum. FINDlNG 1.5 Board member relationships with the superintendent and administrative staff disrupt management operations of the Little Rock School District. Despite board policies and precepts which call for support and cooperation with top level administration, board member actions and activities provide frequent and disruptive interventions into the managerial operations of the school district. Policies, presumably established to provide appropriate board roles, reflect the following: Board Policy AFB. \"Evaluation of the Superintendent\" states: \"The Board of Directors shall: Determine the duties of the Superintendent ... and~ him. or. bs\u0026lt;r ill th.e dischar~e Q.( ~or.~~ (emphasis added). Board Re~ulation BBA-R, Duties and Responsibilities. states: \"Board members and the Superintendent should tt!al eaci! other~ courtesy and~ bQth ill pyhlic and ill priya_te\" (emphasis added). As an example of dysfunction in regard to these policies, the auditors observed one board member, at a parent meeting at Pulaski Junior High School, who publicly ridiculed the district administration before parents. When a parent questioned the principal on why the school district doesn't extend the school day (in order to improve learning), the principal said, \"That is a Board matter.\" Immediately, the board member interrupted the meeting and loudly stated to the entire group, 'Well, the administration tells us Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit :\u0026gt; N.A.S.E. December 21 . 1990 Page 24 that the attention span of kids is only 20-45 minutes, and we can't do anything like that (extend the school day) until we (board members) get a straight answer from the administration.\" Why this board member chose to make such a self-effacing comment is anybody's guess, but the premise was faulty. Extending the school day IS a Board matter, and it has nothing to do with the attention span of children. Such caviling statements only serve to denigrate the integrity of the Board, administrators, and the Little Rock School District as a whole. Further, community leaders interviewed by the auditors indicated serious concern over troublesome board member behaviors. Their concern centered on the long term good of the Little Rock community. The feeling is that the combative nature of the governing board and the contentious disputes that board members seem to cultivate are harmful and jeopardize the future of the entire community. The logic was, as the schools go, so goes the major social institutional foundation, so goes the community, so goes the economy. One leader's statement was that \"unless the Board quits the negative and destructive battling, and begins to heal the hurts of the school district, the whole community could go down the river.\" Auditors carefully reviewed policies, procedures, district records, and communiques. Interviews were conducted with teachers, administrators, board members, and parents. The auditors found board members to be in flagrant violation of Board Policy AFB and Regulation BBA-R. Board members frequently publicly rebuke and embarrass managerial employees including the superintendent, other central office administrators, and building level staff. Elementary School Colleagues Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (!:) N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 25 Teachers, administrators, and parents perceive the divisiveness caused by board members as one of the district's greatest weaknesses. Examples of improper public statements by board members include the following: \"I'm going to get that sorry son-of-a-bitch\" (reference made to an associate superintendent)\n\"She is a PR disaster. Don't let her out in the schools, on TV, or in the newspapers\" (reference to the superintendent)\n\"She is incompetent\" (reference to an top level administrator)\n\"She has skinny little lips and shouldn't be on (sic) the media\"\n(reference to superintendent) \"The administration has not really studied this, they do no planning.\" These comments not only violate board policy and regulations, but they are signs of disrespect, mistrust, lack of confidence, and cynicism which creates open divisiveness within the school district. This divisiveness renders the Little Rock School District ineffective in carrying out its mission. Teachers and administrators stated that the divisiveness caused by the lack of trust and respect shown by board members has contributed greatly to the excessive turnover in superintendents. They further believe that it has a debilitating effect on the effectiveness of the central office team, teachers, and principals. The effect of divisiveness is illustrated by the following comments by employees: \"sad to see the way they treat each other\"\n\"it contributes to the instability of our school district\"\n\"this divisiveness spills over into the community\"\n\"as an employee I get very discouraged\"\n\"this perpetuates the bad light we have been viewed in\"\n\"it perpetuates lack of confidence in administrators\"\n\"it upsets the teachers\"\n\"this causes poor public relations\"\nLittle Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 26 \"it shows lack of confidence in administration and leads to the demise of public confidence\"\n\"too many embarrassing and belittling remarks made\"\n\"to the public it looks like the kids are not our focal point and the public loses confidence. Board members' public humiliation and belittlement of the staff members and district greatly weakens the power and ability of the administrative team to influence and lead the organization productively. Finding 1.6 Board members intrude into administrative roles and disrupt the operations of the Little Rock School District. Board Regulation BBA-R states, \" ... when board members receive complaints or criticism ... they should encourage the person making (the complaint) to take (it) through the channels of procedure set under Board policy.\" The auditors learned that this aspect of Board Regulation BBA-R is frequently not followed. Instead, it is common practice for board members to receive complaints and criticism and take them directly to an administrator. Moreover, the auditors found that board members do not adhere to the section of Board Regulation BBA-R, \"Processing Requests for Information\" which states, \" ... when a board member wants information about a particular program or area, he or she should direct the request to the superintendent or one of the two associate superintendents.\" Board members frequently bypass the superintendent and the associate superintendents to make inquiries and to request information from middle management and teachers. Several administrators, including principals, alluded to the confusion board members create with such practice. Lines of communication within the organization are confused. When asked whether she felt she should comply with Regulation BBA-R, one board member stated,  ... no!, I'll investigate it myself.\" In addition, the \"Processing Requests for Information\" section of BBA-R lacks a process for ranking requests and determining which, if any, requests will be pursued by the administration. This causes the administration to be chasing individual board member demands without Board action. Such individual Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit I!:\u0026gt; N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Pa~e 27 board member action is violative of sound principles of educational management and state law which limits board member authority to only such times as the Board sits, deliberates, and acts as a body. The following quotations by teachers, CT A Officers, and administrators, other than the superintendent and two associate Superintendents, confirmed that one or more board members frequently do not adhere to Regulation BBA-R. Such statements further illustrate staff members' perceptions of board members' behaviors. \"The board calls me to check on things and sometimes other people.\" \"Board members bring questions (directly) to principals and it causes problems.\" \"They call my staff directly and make requests for information and they call me at home.\" \"A board member called me to have a drink tonight and \"discuss\" business.\" The auditors also found that board members act in violation of Board Policy BBA, \"Duties and Responsibilities,\" which states, \" the Board of Directors \u0026amp;hall: .... 10. ~ authority a.s ~ members o!lb'. fillell ~ a.s a ~ ~ in session, or as legally directed by the board. . ... 12. Exercise !lQ administrative responsibility ~ individuals with re.speg to the~- 13. Re1ram individuals 1roni commandin~ the ser:vke.s of .any S:C.l!ool employee  ( emphasis added). Teachers, administrators, and community members perceive that individual board members are playing administrative roles. Some believe that this has increased greatly with the turnover in superintendents. Others believe that \"all the meddling causes confusion.\" The auditors found that individual board members command services of administrators by giving selfinitiated directives to administrators. Board members also exercise administrative responsibilities without board approval. Examples of these behaviors range from ordering the public relations staff to keep the superintendent off TV and out of the newspapers, to directing other administrators in their conduct of committees. The latter includes giving orders as to \"which decisions\" the committees \u0026amp;hould make. Board members also direct administrators to complete numerous and time consuming reports, which is another example of individual board members commanding services of school employees, exercising administrative responsibility, and exerting authority without support of a board vote. Information and report requests by individual board members in the Little Rock School District are out of control. The auditors found that board members make excessive numbers of requests for information and that these requests demand large amounts of administrators' time. As stated Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C\u0026gt; N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 28 by one administrator, \" the board does not fully appreciate the time required to respond to their problems.\" Demands for reports are communicated to administrators other than those designated in board Regulation BBA-R via the telephone and at board meetings. Some board members make such demands to the administration with a FAX machine from their employer's office! All of these requests are in violation of Board Policy BBA and Board Regulation BBA-R. Board member individual requests and demands upon the organization for \"reports\" are mind-boggling in quantity. After attending one board meeting and reviewing lists of requests for reports made at board meetings during the past year, the auditors found that these requests severely limit administrators' time to perform their formally assigned duties. Sixty-five nxrnests for information or directives from individual board members were made in seven board meetings reviewed by the Auditors as shown in Exhibit IIl.1.4.1: Exhibit IIl.1.4.1 Individual Board Member Directives and Requests for Reports .lwru:li Meetin,~ Q.ate August 28, 1990 July 9, 1990 June 6, 1990 March 16, 1990 May 18, 1990 September 21, 1990 September 28, 1990 Number Qi Reg_uests Total 15 4 5 13 7 11 10 65 Auditors reviewed examples of the types of requests and directives from individual board members which are provided below: 1. VIPS hours for McDermott and Fulbright schools\n2. annual operating cost of the IRC, administration annex building\n3. information on the checks written to the various office supply companies\n4. report on buildings where academic disparities do not exist or are minimal\n5. report on teachers who had been placed on the wrong salary scale\n6. report summary of the District's excess property and short and long-term plans for it\n7. report on all existing policies of the music department\n8. report on all the students who had been through \"Changing Directions\" to see how they are doing\nLittle Rock School Oistnct Curriculum Audit q:, N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 29 9. report on how Metropolitan can be better utilized and report on how Metro grads fare in the job market - are they employable\n10. study by the Biracial Advisory Committee on all secondary schools similar to the one conducted at Central High last fall\n11. report on number of volunteer hours at each school\n12. report on number of schools that have active PTA'S or PTSA's--survey schools to see how many rooms do not have a home room parent\n13. report on breakdown of volunteer hours worked in incentive schools, area schools, and magnet schools\n14. report on why Bobby Chapple could not participate in choir performances\n15. report on break down of staffing at the restructured schools\n16. report on the following aspects in incentive schools: enrollment, classes with 1-20 ratios, and vacancies\n17. estimate on costs of refurbishing Quigley Stadium\n18. report on adequacy of maintenance staff\n19. report on athletic eligibility requirements in neighboring six states\nand 20. report on how the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District gate receipts are distributed. On the face of it, some of this requested information appears to be appropriate for Board utilization, and it is. However, such demands for information are not appropriate from individual board members unless the board member makes a motion to receive such information, and after debate and passing the motion, the Board as a whole takes action requesting the information. The auditors found that many of the requests were frivolous, and that board members were trying to respond to some small segment of their constituency, or to \"second-guess\" the administration, as several staff members put it. Responding to these idiosyncratic requests consumes large amounts of administrative anc! secretarial time and severely infringes upon administrators' time to carry out their duties. Many requests serve only the political interests and self-serving needs of individual board members and do not represent the interest of the total board. The result is a rudderless organization, drifting and darting sporadically as board and community politics warm-up and cool-off, and as board members pursue short-term individual gains and sacrifice long-term district gains. Effective school districts base decisions on \"what is best for students,\" not individuals' political interests. FINDING 1.7 The Board's professional negotiations agreement with the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association inhibits Board control of educational programs. Board Policy ADA, \"Mission Statement of the Little Rock School District, states: Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 30 \"The mission of the Little Rock School District is to ~ a!! educational pro~am tl!fil ~ ~ chi!..d 1.Q achieve ~ ~t potential.\" The auditors found provisions in the \"Professional Negotiations Agreement Between the Board of Directors and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association\" which inhibit board control of educational programs and achievement of its mission for every child within its care. These provisions include the following:  length of the work day Article III.A. \u0026amp; XXII.C.1 \u0026amp; 2)\n duties (Article XXII.B. \u0026amp; F.)\n class-siz.e limits (Article XXI.A.)\n employment of teachers (Article V.A.)\n meetings (Article XXX.A., B., \u0026amp; C.), and  teacher rights regarding instructional methodology (Article XXXI.D.). Each of these constraining and unreasonably delimiting provisions is detrimental to community control of its educational programs and institution. The length of the work day is set at 5 hours and 15 minutes per day in Article ID. A \u0026amp; XXII. C. 1, 2, \u0026amp; 3).A with an additional fifty-four (54) minutes for planning, for a total work day of six (6) hours and nine (9) minutes. This is an extraordinarily short teachers' work day. When combined with provisions which restrict the length and number of meetings teachers may be required to attend and the duties to which teachers may be assigned, it severely limits board flexibility in use of instructional time for improving the quality of educational programs. Low class siz.es are generally accepted as beneficial to the educational program. However, sophisticated research studies establish a broad range of acceptable class sizes. Lowering class sizes to a point still within the range does not result in increased learning. The class-siz.e provisions provided in the Agreement place undue educational and financial restrictions on the board. The board needs flexibility in determining and implementing educational improvements through differential configurations of numbers of students. Further, the board must have authority to require the use of certain teaching techniques and behaviors. Researchers have made significant findings regarding teaching techniques for delivering Board-adopted curricula. Restricting the authority of the board and administration to prescribe appropriate instructional techniques significantly restrains the board's ability to improve educational programs for students in the Little Rock School District. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 31 Another Underutilized Library During School Hours Finally, Article V establishes seven years as the maximum allowance granted to new hires for previous teaching experience. This provision severely and unnecessarily restricts the district's ability to recruit the highest quality teachers. The research literature in industry and education is replete with evidence that selection of an employer is frequently based on salary. The educational literature also states that teachers' mobility is severely limited by salary caps based on years of teaching experience. The Little Rock Public Schools may be inadvertently failing to hire high quality teachers due to limits on the number of years of experience granted on the salary schedule. The Little Rock School District Board has been too generous in giving up its authority in the management of teaching practices in its schools, creating a restrictive and detrimental artificial environment for quality control in teaching and learning. The negotiations process has provided undue constraints on the elected Board to represent the public and to act in accordance with appropriate educational outcomes and guidelines. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit I!) N A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 32 Standard 2: The School District Has Established Clear and Valid Objectives for Student A school system meeting this audit standard has established a clear, valid and measurable set of pupil standards for learning and has set them into a workable framework for their attainment. Unless objectives are clear and measurable, there cannot be any cohesive effort to improve pupil achievement in any one dimension. The lack of clarity denies to a school district the capability of concentrating its resources through a focused approach to management. Instead, resources may be spread too thin and be ineffective in any direction. Objectives are essential to attaining local quality control under the governance of the Board of Education. What the auditors erpected to find in the Little Rock School District: The auditors expected to find a clearly established, district-wide, set of goals and objectives in all subject matter areas and for all grade levels adopted by the Board of Education. Such objectives would set the framework for the operation of the district, its sense of priorities, and explicit direction for the superintendent and the professional staff. Moreover, the auditors expected to find evidence of resources (people, time, materiel) directed toward accomplishment of established goals and objectives. Inherent in such direction would be found evidence of long range planning in instructional decision making, and precision in district efforts to define its mission through policies, regulations, reports, curriculum guides, and other documents. Basically, without defined outcomes (targets), organizational activities (arrows) can be misdirected, fragmented, and inadequately focused. Good school systems have defined what they stand for, and what must be evidenced to show accomplishment of the things for which they stand. What the auditors found in the Little Rock School District: The auditors found curriculum documents that listed objectives for many subjects on a K-12 basis, but these were not linked to Board-adopted central goals or standards for learning. In some cases, the auditors found that changes in the curriculum were unknown by the Board, or had created a surprise for board members when they learned about the changes. District curriculum documents are not very Little Rock School Distnct Curriculum t\\ud1t 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 33 effective in providing teachers the information necessary for guiding instruction or for giving supervisors any clear direction to help them monitor and manage the instructional process. The auditors found large gaps between the written curriculum and what is actually taught. The auditors found inadequate planning for systematic curriculum development in the Little Rock School District. The district has developed a number of multicultural guides in recent years\nhowever, this was done as a result of the desegregation plan rather than as a part of a comprehensive curriculum dt::clopment process. As in several other areas of district operations, the desegregation efforts drive district curriculum planning, leaving control of pivotal curriculum quality to random action. No written procedures exist regarding curriculum changes at the secondary level. As a result, confusion exists regarding what steps should be followed, who is involved in the decision, and what criteria is used in making the decision. In addition, a lack of curriculum articulation and coordination exists in the district. Curriculum guides in the Little Rock School District exists in many different forms within and between curriculum areas. Formats were perplexing and non uniform, which contributed to the limited use of guides by teachers and principals. Guides found range from the locally developed guides to those produced by the state department. Generally, the guides are not effective management documents. Finding 2.1 A voluminous melange of curriculum guide documents exists in the Little Rock School District. The auditors were given and reviewed over 200 curriculum guide documents which are currently being \"used\" in the Little Rock School District. These varied in format within and between curriculum areas. Multicultural curriculum guides for grades K-6 were implemented during the 1989-90 school year. The auditors were told by district supervisors and central office staff that these guides would replace previous curriculum documents and were to be used to direct instruction in the classroom. In addition to the multicultural guides at the elementary level, the auditors reviewed district secondary guides (7-12) which were written prior to 1989. However, district guides have not been written for all course offerings at the secondary level. The auditors were told by teachers and supervisors that state guides were to be used in the courses for which district guides had not been developed. Little Rock School District Cumculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 34 The district recently developed multicultural guides [or several curriculum areas at the secondary level. Teachers are expected to begin using these guides during the current school year. !\\1ulticultural guides were not developed at all grade levels for each core curriculum area. In addition, some of the multicultural guides were designed to be stand alone documents, while others were designed to supplement district guides which are currently in use. The variety of guides plus the [act that they are being used for different functions is confusing to both staff and administration. This was evident when the auditors asked staff members and administrators what was used to direct instruction. The answers varied greatly. Children Sorting and Classifying Objects As an example of the diversity 1)f wswers. when one teacher was asked how he determines what content to teach in his class. he tapp\u0026lt;!d the ~ide of his head a couple of times without verbal comment. Some department supervisors indicated that the stale guides were being used lo direct instruction in grades 9-12. Other supervisors stated that l11e teachers were probably using the teacher resource book that goes along with the text. When the question was posed 10 huilding administrators, one response was as follows. \"The basal textbooks direct instruction.\" The auditors round that teachers follow any of a number of things in selecting content to teach. tncluding course content guides, state guides, the new multicultural Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (!) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 35 guide, the district guide or the text to direct instruction. Little congruity was found in content determination at the school level. To add to the confusion, the auditors found that there was not a comprehensive list of curriculum guide documents. School officials provided the auditors what was stated to be a comprehensive set of curriculum guides, prior to their visit to the district. However, on several occasions, the auditors found teachers using curriculum documents which the auditors had not seen. Upon request, district officials did provide the additional guides, but it was clear that there was confusion regarding what guides were actually being used. Finding 2.2 Curriculum guides in most curriculum areas are inadequate to direct instruction. The auditors reviewed and rated the curriculum documents provided by the school district personnel. The guides varied in quality within and between curriculum areas. A summary of the curriculum guide rankings appear in Exhibit III.2.1. The guides were analyzed using five criteria which support sound curriculum management. The evaluation of the guides pertained to the following criteria: (1) clarity and validity of a guide's objectives, (2) congruence of the curriculum guide to the testing/evaluation program, (3) delineation by grade level of the prerequisite essential skills upon which to initiate instruction, (4) delineation of the major instructional tools in the forms of textbooks and supplementary materials, (5) clear examples for classroom application. For a curriculum guide to be an effective management tool, it must focus the efforts of the teacher in the classroom. Furthermore, in order to result in sound curriculum management the guides should connect classes vertically and horizontally across grade levels and schools. Curriculum guides should be \"user friendly.\" A teacher should be able to understand and use them without any additional information or training. A curriculum guide is considered excellent if it receives a composite score of 13-15 points. There were no district guides that scored in this range. There were, however, several curriculum guides which scored a 12 rating. These guides appear to be effective curriculum documents which could be used as models for the other curriculum areas to emulate. The remainder of the guides were rated less than adequate to very poor. Lmle Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ :--1.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 36 Generally speaking, the district curriculum documents were strong in stating the objective, providing the text and supplementary material to be used and giving practical suggestions to classroom teachers in teaching the content. The guides were generally weak in specifying the necessary prerequisite skills, knowledge and attitudes upon which to initiate teaching and weak in identifying methods of assessing student learning related to the objectives. Caution - Children on Task EXHIBIT III.2.1 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit c N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 37 RA TING OF CURRICULUM GUIDES DEVELOPED IN THE LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (Guides Listed in Rank Order of Quality) CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE DATE GRADE RA TING BY CRITERIA TOTAL Published LEVELS 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS Language Arts 1989 K-6 2 3 3 3 12 Language Arts 1989 7-9 2 3 3 3 12 Language Arts 1989 10-12 2 1 3 3 3 12 Reading 1989 K-6 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/Eng Asst 1990 7 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/Eng Asst 1990 8 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/ Eng Asst 1990 9 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/ Eng Asst 1990 10-12 2 l 3 3 3 12 Art Survey 7 2 2 3 3 2 12 Crafts/ Fibers 11-12 2 3 3 3 12 Intermediate Alg 1989 10-12 2 3 2 3 2 12 Social Studies 1989 K-6 2 2 3 3 11 Pottery 11-12 2 3 2 3 11 Drawing II 11-12 2 3 1 3 2 11 Drawing III 11-12 2 3 1 3 2 11 Biolab 10-12 2 3 3 2 11 Chemtech 11-12 2 3 3 2 11 Regular Math 1989 7 2 l 3 2 2 11 Study \u0026amp; Learning Foundations 1990 7-9 2 0 3 3 3 11 Exploratory Music 2 3 0 3 2 10 Dance II 2 3 0 3 2 10 Dance III 2 3 l 2 2 10 Ort'hestra Level D-E-F 2 3 0 3 2 10 Pottery-Ceramics 10-12 2 3 2 2 10 Jewelry Techniques 11-12 2 3 2 2 10 Print ma.king 10-12 2 3 2 2 10 AP Studio Art 11-12 2 3 2 2 10 Art History 10-12 2 3 2 2 10 Drama 11-12 2 2 2 3 10 History of Theatre 2 3 0 2 3 10 Life Science 7 2 3 0 3 2 10 Geography 1990 7 2 1 0 3 3 9 American History 1990 8 2 1 0 3 3 9 Dance I 2 3 0 2 2 9 Music Theory I 2 0 3 3 9 ~lusic Appreciation 2 3 0 3 1 9 Photography 10-12 2 3 2 l 9 Mime 2 2 0 2 3 9 Classic Scene Study 2 2 0 2 3 9 Science Target Concepts/ Slcills 1989 K-6 2 0 3 3 9 Mathematics Multietbnic Guide 1989 K-6 2 2 3 2 9 Regular/ Honors - Geometry 1989 10-12 2 2 2 2 9 CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE DATE GRADE Published LEVELS Advanced Algebra - Regular 1989 11-12 AP Calculus AB/BC 1989 Family Life Ed.New Futures 1990 K-o Honors Algebra II 1989 9 Psychology Jewelry Techniques 11-12 Dance Techniques Earth Science 8 Physical Science 9 Enriched Math 1989 7 Regular Math 1989 8 Regular Algebra-J.H. 1989 9 Algebra 1-H.S. 1989 10 Enriched Algebra I 1989 8 Pre-Algebra 1989 11-12 Concepts of Geometry 1989 11-12 Regular Algebra II 1989 10-12 Trigonometry Regular/ Honors 1989 11-12 Greek I-III 1989 Latin I-II 1989 AP Latin 1989 French I-IV 1989 AP American History Sociology Concert Band Stage Band Acting Children s Theatre Science Technology Earth Science - Multicultural 1990 8 Physical Science - Multicultural 1990 9 :,,,tarketing Mgmt 12 Marketing 11-12 Intro to Marketing 10-12 Music 1989 K-o Music History 10 Music History 11-12 Dance History 10 Spanish I-IV 1989 Life Science - Multicultural 1990 7 Statistics Unified Physics I-IV German I-IV 1989 Computer Applications - Spread Sheet 11-12 Computer AppLications - Data Base 11-12 Computer Programming - RPG 11-12 Computer Programming - Cobol 11-12 Computer Programming - Adv. Basic 11-12 Computer Technology - Inf. Systems 10-12 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 38 RATING BY CRITERIA TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS 2 1 2 2 2 9 2 1 2 2 2 9 2 0 3 3 9 2 2 2 2 9 2 1 0 2 3 8 2 3 0 2 8 2 2 0 2 2 8 2 1 0 3 2 8 2 1 0 3 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 1 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 1 2 2 8 2 1 2 2 I 8 2 1 0 2 2 7 2 0 0 2 3 7 2 2 0 2 1 7 2 2 0 2 1 7 2 2 0 0 3 7 2 .2 0 0 3 7 2 1 0 3 I 7 0 2 3 7 0 1 2 3 7 2 0 3 7 2 0 3 7 2 0 1 1 3 7 2 0 0 3 6 2 0 2 6 2 0 2 1 6 2 2 0 0 2 6 2 0 2 2 0 6 0 0 3 5 2 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 4 0 2 I 0 4 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE Computer Technology - Introduction Word Processing I \u0026amp; II Typewriting I Typewriting II Office Tech. Lab Office Procedures Cooperative Office Ed Record Keeping Computerized Acct I Computerized Acct lI Accounting I Accounting II Intro to Drafting Exploratory Business Carpentry Basic Welding Intro to Computers - Data Processing Automotive - Technology II Auto Body Basic Electronics American Government - Civics American History Contemporary American History Economics Global Studies World Cultures World Geography World History Family Life Ed - New Futures Food Production Mgmt Child Care Guidance-Management Parenting Human Development Housing. Home Furnishings Foods \u0026amp; Nutrition Consumer Education Oothing \u0026amp; Textiles Child Development Independent Living Family Living Home Economics I Personal Living Skills Exploratory - Home Economics Home Economics - Practical Arts DATE GRADE Published LEVELS 9-12 l0-12 7-12 9-12 11-12 11-12 11-12 10-12 10-12 11-12 10-12 11-12 10-12 9-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 9-12 9-11 11-12 11-12 11-12 9-lO 9-lO 10-12 1990 7 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 39 RATING BY CRITERIA TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 l 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 I 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 :? 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE DATE GRADE Published LEVELS Industrial Arts-Technology Ed 7-S Exploratory - Career Ed Career Orientation Radio Broadcasting Health Occupations Computer Repair - Technology Printing 89-90 Suspension-Steering Specialist 1987 Brake Specialist 1987 Electronic - System Specialist 1987 Automotive Technology -Technician 1987 Cobol Commercial Art I-II 1987 10-12 Printing Press - Operations Industrial Equipment - Maintenance 1987 10-12 Basic Drafting II 11-12 Cosmetology T.V. Production Computer Technology II Commercial Foods 1-11 Structured RPG Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ' N.A.S.E. DeccmbC'r 21. 1990 Page 40 RATING BY CRITERIA TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 When the district curriculum guides were separated by subject areas, the results were even more revealing regarding strengths and weaknesses. Exhibit III2.2 gives the average scores of the district curriculum guides in each subject area. The curriculum areas are listed from highest average to lowest average. Also listed are the total number of guides rated in each content 3Tea along with the highest and lowest rated guide. The strongest curriculum guides were in language arts, while the weakest documents were in vocational education. Since there are different types of curriculum documents being utilized, it appears appropriate to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each type of document. These are as follows: A) Multicultural Guides Strengths - Generally speaking, these guides were strong in stating the objectives, delineating the text and supplementary material, and providing examples of how to approach key concepts/skills in the classroom. Weaknesses - These guides were weak in the respect that they did not identify methods of assessing student learning and the majority of guides did not specify the necessary prerequisite skills expected of students (language arts and reading were the exception). B) State Guides Strengths - These guides did state the objectives to be taught. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ NA.S.E. December 21.1990 Page 41 Weaknesses - Since these guides were designed more as a resource than a stand alone document, there are several weaknesses when used as the curriculum guide. These guides lack the following components: An assessment or evaluation piece, a listing of required prerequisite skills, delineation of major instructional resources and a linkage to classroom utilization. C) District Guides (Non multicultural) The district guides vary more in format and content than the other two categories. As a result, it's more difficult to generalize their strengths and weaknesses. The reader should take this into consideration when reading the following summary. Strengths - The guides stated the objectives to be taught, listed the text and supplementary materials, and provided examples of how to approach key concepts and skills (although this was limited in several guides.) Weaknesses - Although some guides provided an assessment component, the majority of the district guides were lacking this criteria. The majority of the guides also did not articulate the necessary prerequisite skills. As mentioned above, several guides lacked examples of how to approach key concepts or skills. EXIDBIT IIl.2.2 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C NA.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 42 SUMMARY OF CURRICULUM GUIDE RATINGS BY CONTENT AREA LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CONTENT AREA I TOTAL I HIGHEST I LOWEST CONTENT I GUIDES I RATED I RATED AREA I REVIEWED I GUIDE I GUIDE AVERAGE I I I RATING LANGt:AGE ARTS I 9 I 12 I 12 12 READING I 11 I 12 I 12 12 STUDY \u0026amp; LEARNING I 3 I 11 I 11 11 FOUNDATIONS I I I ART I 11 I 12 I 8 10.2 DRAMALTHEA TRE I 6 I 10 I 7 8.7 I I I MATHEMATICS I 24 I 12 I 5 8.7 SCIDICE I 17 I 11 I 4 8.3 MUSIC/DANCE I 21 I u I 6 7.6 SOCIAL STUDIES I 20 I 11 I 2 7.2 FOREIGN LANGUAGE I 6 I 8 I 4 7 FAMILY LIFE ED-NEW I 8 I 9 I 2 8 FUTURES I I I VOCATIONAL I 66 I 7 I 2.6 ED\\XATION I I I Moreover, significant gaps exist in the coverage of curriculum with appropriate guides. In Exhibit ill.2.3, one can see the auditors analysis of the scope of curriculum. With such disproportionate distribution of guides, it is impossible for the Little Rock School District to connect student learnings from one level or school to the next. Art Business Career Education Computer Science Consumer Sciences Drivers Education English. Lang. Arts family Life foreign Language Guidance Health Industrial Arts Learning foundations Math. General 'vlatn Algebra Math. Advanced 'vlusic Photography Phys. Educ .. Dance Psychology Reading Science. BiolO!!ical Science. Physical Science, General Social Studies Speech and Drama Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit c N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 43 Exhibit IIl.2.3 Distribution of Curriculum Guides by Subject Matter and Grade Level Little Rock School District K\\ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I s I 9 I i I l l l 1 i I 1 1 1 1 1 l I l I l 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I l I 1 1 1 1 l 1 l 1 1 l 1 l I 1 l 1 l 1 l I 1 1 l l I l I I I I I 2 I t I l 1 2 T 2 l I I 1 I 3 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I l I I l I 1 I I 1 I I I 2 2 1 4 10 I 11 I 12 I n I 4\\111111 I 1 I 14 I 14 I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 3 3 2 1 l 1 6 l 1 1 1 4 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 5 8 7 2 1 1 5 Note: Numbers in the cells indicate the oumber of curriculum guides provided to the auditors at a given grade level or subject matter field. Cells which are empty have no curriculum guide at that grade level for that subject matter field. Gaps and overlap are evident in the distribution of curriculum guides, indicating little or no coherence, or 'flow\" of teaching and learning throughout the system. Connections, if any, among grade levels, subject areas, schools, etc. would be random and determined by caprice or whim rather than soundly developed reason or rational planning. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N .A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 44 Finding 2.3 There is no systematic plan for development and revision of curriculum in the Little Rock Public Schools The auditors found no systematic plan for curriculum development in the Little Rock Public Schools. Although a majority of staff members interviewed indicated there was no such plan in existence, a couple of administrators thought the district did have a written plan. When the auditors asked to obtain a copy of the plan, they were given a copy of the Arkansas schedule for textbook adoptions. When interviewing supervisors it was evident that such a process was not currently in place. One department supervisor indicated that her department reviewed the curriculum for revision after textbook adoptions. A second supel'Visor said his department does not follow this procedure. It is obvious that clear expectations regarding a comprehensive plan for curriculum development have not been establishe A systematic plan for curriculum development would identify what areas of curriculum would be revised how goals and objectives would be re-validated\nhow curriculum materials (including textbooks) would re-evaluated\nhow test and assessment data would be utilized to strengthen the curriculum\nand how curriculum monitoring would be incorporated in the curriculum development activities entailed in the plan. The auditors found no documentation that addressed these very important areas in the Little Rock School District. The auditors did obtain a copy of a memo to the Superintendent dated 24 May 1990 from the planning, research and evaluation department which provided a sample plan for curriculum review. This would appear to indicate that the administration is aware of the need for such a plan and is considering steps for implementing a comprehensive district curriculum review process Finding 2.4 Written procedures are deficient to direct additions or deletions of courses or program changes at the secondary level. When the auditors asked for written procedures for adding, deleting, or changing course offerings at the secondary level. they were given a page of the board policy related to curriculum development (IFD) which states, Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N .A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 45 \"Changes and improvements in the curriculum offerings may be suggested and implemented administratively, as deemed necessary and educationally sound by the Superintendent of Schools but shall be reported to the Board prior to implementation ... \" This policy does not state what procedures should be followed, rather it gives the administration authority to implement changes when necessary. The auditors asked several staff members what procedures would be followed if a teacher wanted to replace an existing course with a new offering. Responses were varied and included reactions as follows: Building Principal - \"Course changes go to the Associate Superintendent and then to the Deputy Superintendent.\" Curriculum Supervisor - \" .... first go to the supervisor, then to the Assistant Superintendent and then to the senior management team ..... not sure if it then goes to the Board.\" Assistant Principals indicated that it would first be presented to the principal, then to the supervisor, then to the Assistant Superintendent, and finally to the Superintendent. Assistant Superintendent - \" ........ a committee would be formed as stipulated in the professional negotiations agreement. The department supervisor would review the recommendation with the Associate Superintendent. The Associate Superintendent would meet with the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent. The final step would be to present it to the Board for approval.\" It is evident from the explanations above that there is not a clear understanding among the administrative staff regarding procedures to be followed when requesting a change in the existing curriculum. To further complicate the issue, the auditors were made aware of the fact that an AP Chemistry course was approved for this year at one of the high schools as a result of parents coming directly to a Board meeting. It appears this particular course adoption circumvented any formal procedure. In summary, confusion exists regarding what procedures to follow and criteria needed to recommend a course change at the secondary level. Fmding 2.5 Curriculum articulation and coordination is ineffective in the Little Rock School District. The auditors found little evidence of a coordinated and articulated curriculum. Such a curriculum would have continuity from grade level to grade level and consistency across grade levels and between school buildings. The district has not established a central curriculum body to ensure that coordination and articulation exist in the educational program. Furthermore, no key administrative officer has assumed this responsibility in the Little Rock School District. Small Group Reading Lesson Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 46 The elementary and secondary programs appear to function separately with very little communication from one level to the other. When supervisors explained the curriculum development and textbook adoption process, they described elementary committees and secondary committees working separately without knowledge of what was being done al the other level. For example, the language arts multicultural guides were developed by a K-6 committee and a 7-12 committee which worked separate from each other. The committees were not brought together to discuss issues or coordinate the use of instructional material. An example of lack of articulation can be found in the textbook adoption process for science textbooks implemented in the 1989-90 school year. District documents identified three committees, K-6, 7-9, and 10- 12. The committees functioned as separate decision making groups. There was no evidence that they met as one group to discuss content, assessment or instructional issues which cross the identified grade level groupings. When supervisors were asked about curriculum articulation and coordination, they were aware of the problems, One supervisor stated, \"There is no communication between elementary and secondary teachers.\" A second supervisor indicated, \"Articulation K-12 is a problem. There is no sequencing or little Rock Scnool District Curriculum Audit C NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 47 coordination. The fifth grade teachers have no idea what the eighth grade teachers are teaching or visa versa.\" A third supervisor shared that teachers have expressed concerns about the lack of a K-12 scope and sequence. The Board of Directors appear to be concerned about this problem as well. When the auditors reviewed minutes of the March 23, 1989 meeting, they found the following statement: \"Board members expressed continuing concern that there is not a unified curriculum ...... .\" Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit l N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 48 Standard 3: The School District Has Documentation Explaining How Its Programs Have Been Implemented, Developed, Conducted A school district meeting this curriculum audit standard is able to show how its programs have been created as the result of a systematic identification of deficiencies in the achievement and growth of its students compared to measurable standards of learning. In addition, a school system meeting this standard is able to demonstrate that it possesses a focused and coherent approach toward defining curriculum and that as a whole, it is more effective than a simple sum of its parts, i.e., any arbitrary combination of programs or schools does not equate to the larger school district entity. The purpose of having a school district meet this standard is to obtain the educational and economic benefits of a coordinated and consistent program for students, both to enhance learning by maximizing pupil interest, and by utilizing economies of scale where applicable. What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Little Rock School District The auditors expected to find a highly developed, articulated and coordinated curriculum in the district that was effectively monitored by the administrative and supervisory staffs. Such a curriculum would be: 1. Centrally defined and adopted by the Board of Education\n2. Demonstrably consistent with a coherent rationale for at least content delineation within curriculum\n3. Clearly explained to members of the teaching staff and building level administrators\nand 4. Monitored by central office personnel and building principals. What the Auditors Found in the Little Rock School District The auditors found historical evidence of many individual programs which were designed to address specific curriculum needs and inequities. While these programs, as designed, reflect current best practices, they are plagued by inconsistent implementation at the school, principal, teacher, and student level. Multiple and separate program efforts compete for staff attention and for district resources. There is Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 49 inconsistent implementation across schools, programs and grades of the designed curriculum and the programs which support curriculum delivery. Moreover, the auditors found a distinct pattern of \"tracking\" which was implemented along racial lines for certain course and educational offerings, which had the appearance of \"resegregation\" and inequity in some cases, particularly in English and mathematics \"enriched\" and \"regular\" classes. Such practices demonstrate inconsistency of curriculum management and direction within the school district. For example, the district has a policy, imposed by the Federal courts, that \"no school shall be racially identifiable.\" Several factors within the schools are not consistent with this policy, and the policy is impotent as a predictor of school curriculum practices as shown in this audit section. Finding 3.1: The allocation of resources to support curriculum implementation is inconsistent and inequitable The auditors found inconsistent and inequitable implementation of the curriculum linked to the following variables:  inequity of facilities  inequity of curriculum materials  inequity of staff expertise and assignment Inevi,ity Q[ Facilities. There is tremendous variance in the quality of facilities and the status of repair and disrepair across area schools, magnet schools and incentive schools. Staff reported that magne schools receive first priority and that requests for repair for area schools are not treated equa . Staff also indicated that a visit by a member of the Governing Board often triggered installation or repair of a long requested improvement in basic facilities. This discrepancy will be discussed in more detail in a later section of this document under Standard 5. Inequity Qf Curriculum Materials. An example of inequity in distribution of curriculum materials is the allocation of library books to schools. While each school meets minimum North Central standards for the number of books per student, there is a marked inequity in library holdings. Exhibit III.3.1.1 illustrates these differences across schools. Library book distribution at the elementary schools, organized into categories of area schools, magnet schools and incentive schools, shows that an average allocation for an elementary school is 24 library books per pupil, with a range in allocation is from 15 books per pupil to about 54 books per pupil. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit Cl N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 50 Library book allocation per student across junior high schools averages about 16 library books per student. The range is about 10 books per student to about twenty-three books per student. Library book allocation per student across the high schools averages about 13 books per student. The range is about 11 books per student to about 19 books per student. Library book allocation for all schools is about 25 books per student on average, with a range of 10 books per ~tudent to 54 books per student. These are unusually wide variances for a school district striving to gain equity and consistency across educational sites. N u m Exhibit Ill.3.1.1 Comparisons of Number of Library Books Per Pupil - Little Rock Schools b 100 e r 0 r B 0 0 k s ..\n!4 s 10 Elementary 1!1?3 -16 e Junior High Level of Buildings 9 -3 1 High School :~ Mean I I  High j I These differences in library allocation parallel many other observed differences in distribution and allocation of resources. The difference in the allocation of library books per student across elementary, junior high school and high schools was mirrored across supplies, furniture, equipment and buildings. Another example of inequity in curriculum materials is the distribution of maps and globes to support the social studies curriculum and the new multicultural curriculum. Auditors observed marked differences in the availability of these basic tools across the schools. Many staff reported that they did not have the materials called for in their curriculum guides and did not know when basic classroom tools such as maps and globes would be a priority in school budgets. Lntle Rock School D,stnct Curriculum Audit C N .A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 51 There is evidence. however. that there is equity in some textbook allocations. All classrooms at all elementary sites which were visited appeared to have complete sets of the basal reading series and the supporting materials. Both regular classrooms and special education resource programs had adopted reading materials. Most sites have the new social studies textbook and supporting materials\nhowever, there was evidence that some sites were not using these materials. Young Scholar With a Book Inequity cl Silll Eiq2ertise llilll Assiiwment. The auditors found evidence of inequity of stall expertise across school sJtes. Experienced staH are more likely to transfer to magnet schools and new inexperienct:d staff arc mor::: li\\.:dy tone assigneii to area scnoob. In addition, some school's faculties are not reflective o[ the district's faculty composition and characteristics, which indicates inconsistency or disagreement betwern district policy and school-level practices. As an example nf the inconsi~tcncy in staff a~signrnenl. the auditors looked at schools and the composition of their faculty compart:d to their student body. Junior High School faculty compositions reflect imbalance in '. cacher assig:nment by race as shown in the following Exhibit lll.3 .1.2: Exhibit III.3.1.2 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 52 Comparisons of Racial Composition of Junior High School Faculties - Little Rock Schools 1990 District Southwt PulskiH MannM Mablvl Hndrsn ForstHt Dunbar ClovrDI 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 White Tchrs = Black Tclirs From the above exhibit, it is easy to determine that their is a big difference in the racial percentages of faculty at the various schools. For example, Pulaski Heights Junior High has the smallest percentage of black teachers of all the schools and is a full 13 percentage points less than the district average. The question of whether this is intentional or not on the part of the administration is less important than the question of why such discrepancies aren't predicted by official school district policy. If the district policy were applied consistently in the case of the junior high schools, faculty assignment would be no less \"racially identifiable\" than the policy specifies. There is also a difference in the level of expertise assigned to various schools. In the following exhibit, Exhibit III.3.1.3, the average number of years of experience of the teaching faculty at junior high schools was examined, and the differences were noticeable. One school, Cloverdale Junior High School has a ..___ very inexperienced faculty, and the average faculty member is nontenured. Such discrepancy in assignment of teaching expertise represents inconsistency given no policy requirement for the distribution of experienced teachers faun . District Southwt PulslriH Exhibit 111.3.1.3 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC NA.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 53 Comparisons of Teacher Experience  Little Rock Junior High Schools 1990 i=================================.-----~ -!::===============================================::.--~ MannM I i:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,-------~ Mablvl ~---------------~ Hndrsn ,\n:==========================================-.-----~ ForstHt Dunbar t====:.:.:.-:.-:.-:.-_-_-_-_-....,----------~ OovrDI -=======\n===--~-----,-----+----------, 0 2 4 6 8 10 Average Years of Experience Distribution of students is shown in the Junior High Schools in Exhibit Ill3.l.4. There are also discrepancies between schools in the racial composition of schools, but in this case, such discrepancies were documented in accordance with plans and policy of the district. However, the auditors found that in actual practice, the magnet concept provides an incentive at the junior high level for a composition of white/black students which favors an inordinate percentage of white students. The auditors heard from many sources that the magnet junior high school is highly sought after by white families, and that more white students than black students are admitted into the magnet junior high because of greater 'political\" influence on district assignment processes among white parents. The pupil assignment office procedures were not a part of the audit. nor was a clear finding determinable. However, the racial composition of the various junior high schools might appear to support the complaints heard from parents and teachers, as shown in the following exhibit: Exhibit UI.3.1.4 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit \u0026lt;l) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 54 Comparisons of Racial Composition of Junior High School Students Little Rock Schools 1990 District Southwt Pulsk.iH MannM Mablvl Hndrsn ForstHt Dunbar OoVTDI 0% - ------------ - - --- --- ----. - . -- -- - 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Finding 3.2: Curriculum monitoring practices arc inconsistent 0 White Students = Black Students Some principals monitored teachers' lesson plans for incorporation of curricula objectives\nhowever, man principals had no strategy for determining the degree of classroom implementation of the prescribed curriculum. Teachers also reported wide discretion in selection of teaching content, and reported little direction from some principals in curriculum or determinations of what to teach. A specific example of inequitable curriculum monitoring is the multicultural curriculum. Only about onethird of the principals routinely checked each teacher's lesson plans for incorporation of multicultural objectives. Teachers' lesson plans, in the schools where principals monitored, consistently reflected integration of multicultural objectives into instructional plans. However, in many schools, there is no systematic observation of the implementation of this relatively new curriculum. At schools where principals do not monitor implementation of the multicultural curriculum, teachers often did not report a plan to teach the new curriculum. There is also no evidence of a systematic plan to link observed teacher training needs in this new curriculum to current staff development efforts. urthermore, there is no evidence of any effort to disaggregate and analyze student achievement data for acquisition of multicultural objectives. Specific level tests have not been developed and the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test samples multicultural objectives prior to the scheduled sequence for instruction in the Little Rock curriculum guide. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 55 Finding 3.3: Placement of students in programs and classes is inconsistent Gifted and Talented Classes. The Little Rock School District has provided instruction for gifted and talented students at each of its schools, but placement of students does not appear to follow any clear cut guidelines or procedures. Teachers complained that procedures to group students for \"GT\" instruction, as it is called, were inconsistent and undependable. The auditors found that the pattern of criteria used for placement of selected students to be erratic and without common patterns. According to the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, classes in gifted and talented, as well as in special education, were grohibited from bein~ racially identifiable, but the auditors found this mandate was not being followed. In a move toward equity, the district has provided a chance for nearly every student in the district to get into the talent pool for consideration. Criteria for placement include the following: Gifted and Talented Nomination Criteria Total Battery on the MAT-6 (50%ile or above) Recommendation for inclusion (any source) Gifted and Talented Selection Criteria Academic Ability (MAT-6) Creativity (Torrance Test) Motivation (Teacher Referral) Additional Data (Biographical data, etc.) Placement by the School and District Placement Committees Placement records examined by the auditors did not confirm a consistent pattern of compliance with any objective criteria. For example, below is a comparison of the selection profiles used in placement of selected gifted and talented students in high schools and in elementary schools. Students were scored according to three criteria: Metropolitan Achievement Test, Version 6\nTorrance Test of Creative Ability\nand teacher rating of potential for success in the program. As shown in the following exhibit (Exhibit IIl.3.3.1) , the profile of these four randomly selected students is inconsistent. No similarity of test/rating information appears among the group. Exhibit III.3.3.1 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 56 Placement Criteria Comparisons Among Gifted and Talented Students 100 T ..... ~ 90 - T * T t I ~ I i  MAT-6 80 t I   Test/Rating I I I 70   I  TTCA Score 0-100 60 1 .\u0026amp; I AT. Profile 50 40 WMale BMale WFcma BFcma Little Rock High School Students II these four randomly selected students were representative of the high school student population enrolled in the gifted and talented program, the criteria for placement stated by the Little Rock School District would be violated. Looking at the chart, the white male has a lower teacher recommendation profile than the black male, yet the MAT-6 six scores are similar. No such similarity exists between the white female and the black female. According to the Little Rock School District's published criteria for placement in the Gifted and Talented program, the students selected above apparently qualify for eligibility for screening. Any student with a 50th percentile (50%) or above on the MAT-6 or any student who is recommended for inclusion is eligible for consideration. As lo placement in the program, the decision is made centrally by a review and placement committee, which is empowered to place students in the Gifted and Talented program at any school in the district. More information is available as the efficacy of this placement process. The following exhibit (Exhibit IIl.3.32) demonstrates the range of abilities placed in the elementary gifted program: Exhibit IIl.3.3.2 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit :, N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 57 Placement Criteria Comparisons Among Gifted and Talented Students 100 - ' 90 -   !  80 !!! I  MAT-6 Rdg Test/Rating 70 ! I A.TICA Score (0-100) T i 60 l  T  T. Profile I l I 50 A A' 40 WMale BMale WFema BFema Little Rock Elementary School Students In the elementary examples given above the range of achievement on the MAT-6 is spread out considerably from the 65th percentile or so for the females, and at the 95th percentile for the males. Discontinuity in placement is obvious from the data given. Inconsistency of placement procedures can be a threat to equity in the Little Rock School District unless the rules and procedures governing student placement are clearly defined. As the auditors found, little or no consistent rationale was found to be established in the placement of gifted and talented students. If the inconsistency were observed with a corresponding balance in racial distribution among classes, such an inconsistency could be construed to help the school district avoid racially identifiable classes. However, the auditors observed that the racial distribution of students in gifted and talented classes and in \"regular\" classes followed no such pattern. Note the racial composition of the classes in the pictures below: Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ' N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 58 SluJenls c1l Pulc1ski Heights Junior High School: Gifted and Talented (Enriched) English Students al Pulaski Heights Junior High School - \"Regular\" English Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 59 Staff also reported that black high school students were frequently counseled to enroll in Gifted and Talented courses rather than Advanced Placement courses. This counseling practice and/or placement decision creates inequity in future opportunity for post-secondary schooling. Physically Handicapped Pro~ams. Placement practices for integration of physically handicapped students are dictated by the physical inaccessibility of many schools and programs. While the physically handicapped are a low incidence population, their educational needs have greater legal protection than those of the non-handicapped. Many schools in the Little Rock School District are not accessible to the physically handicapped. The opportunity of this population is restricted by the absence of physical access at many sites. Decisions regarding their programming are influenced by the condition of school sites. The inequity in facilities produces greater inequity for this population than for others. Reeular and Enriched Classes, Student placement in classes in various basic skill areas (math, English, social studies, etc.) appear to have deleterious characteristics of tracking by ability which results in resegregation of races. For example, in the junior high schools, the percentage of black students in regular classes is dramatically higher than the percentage of black students in enriched classes. Both types of classes have a racial distribution of students different that the distribution of the entire student body. Exhibit III.3.3.3 shows the difference among these classes across junior high schools. 85 P 75 + C r 65 - C C 55 - n 45 - I a 35 1 g C 25 - 15 Exhibit IIl.3.3.3 Junior High School Racial Distribution in Regular and Enriched Classes: Little Rock Schools, 1990 All Classes Regular Classes Enriched Classes  Black 0 White High school English classes also renected inconsistency in student placement. The percentage of black students in regular English classes far exceeds the equivalent percentage of the total student body. High Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 60 Schools are also dissimilar in this regard. A black student has a greater likelihood, on a percentage basis, to get into a gifted English class at McClellan and Parkview High Schools, and much less of a chance to receive the same opportunity at Hall, Central, and Fair High Schools. These discrepancies in English classes amount to \"resegregation\" or \"tracking\" of races on a homogeneous basis, which shows gross inconsistency and wrongful inequities in educational opportunities for minority students. The distribution of students and comparisons between high schools are shown in Exhibit III.3.3.4 as follows: CHS-Gift CHS-Reg Exhibit III.3.3.4 Comparisons of Pupils by Race in 11th Grade Gifted and Regular English Clasacs. Little Rock. High Schools 1990 FHS-Gift _!!! ___ , FHS-Rcg HHS-Gift HHS-Reg MHS-Gift MHS-Reg PHS-Gift PHS-Reg --- - -----.- --- --- --- 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Students 350 i O White I I  Black The auditors found that junior high school principals were not cognizant of these discrepancies. No principal complained about the imbalance of racial groups within the regular and enriched classes. The obvious conclusion is that there is great inconsistency and inequity in the assignment of students to classes on the basis of ability resulting in greater racial disparities. Special Education Proiuams. Placement in special education programs is inconsistent. The percentage of black students in special education is discrepant from the percentage of black students in the school district, and the discrepancy is very noticeable at some schools. The district percentage of black students is about 64%, but the percentage of black students placed in special education is about 70%, indicating inconsistency in placement practices at the school level. Not all principals indicated that they participate Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 61 in the placement process, since some principals reported that they delegate the responsibility for school placement process teams. Principals perform unevenly in the capacity of controlling consistency in placement of special education students. As an example, two junior high schools, Pulaski Heights and Forest Heights, demonstrate major discrepancies in the special education placement practices between blacks and whites. In these two schools, a larger percentage of blacks is placed in special education than the total school percentage of blacks would indicate should be the case. For example, Pulaski Heights Junior High School has a total school population of 721 students, of which 454 students are black comprising a black percentage of 63%. However, the special education student placements number 65, of which 53 are black, comprising a black special education percentage of 82%. Forest Heights has a total school population of 808 students, of which 538 students are black comprising a total school black percentage of 67%. However, the special education student placements number 73, of which 59 are black, comprising a black special education percentage of 81 %. Other schools do not show such dramatic differences in total student body and special education percentages of black students. These discrepancies were not explained by the principals. Central office administrators indicated that such distributions were inconsistent with district policies and desegregation mandates from the federal courts. The abdication of principal's control results in inconsistency and inequity. The racial distribution disparities between the total school populations and the special education populations are illustrated in the descriptive exhibit (Exhibit III.3.3.5) which follows: p E R C E N T Exhibit IIl.3.3.5 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 62 COMPAIUSONS OP BLACK ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGES SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS AND TOT AL SCHOOL STUDENT BODY: UITU! ROCK SCHOOLS 85 I so l\na i) ! 0 75 T C I I ..,., 70 t I I I I   I  SPED 6.5 l iJ Ci I I  60 t  ID SCHOOL ss T so I I 4s l I 40 a ... \u0026lt;n1 Dm,t,u Pcwadl - MAbd - Pawltl SoaWea JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS The discrepancy between junior high school special education black student percentages and total student body black student percentages is mirrored in high schools as well. Central High School has 58% black students in the total student body, but has 84% black students in special education programs, with a 26 percentage point discrepancy. Parkview High School has 54% black students in the total student body, but has 64% black students in special education programs, with a 10 percentage point discrepancy. Differences in the high schools are shown in the following exhibit: Exhibit lll.3.3.6 Comparisons of Special Education and Total School Black Student Percentages: Little Rock Hi~ Schools, 1990 Special Ed Total School High School Black Black Students Students JA Fair 58% 56% McClellan 69% 59% Parkview 64% 54% Hall 64% 53% Central 84% 58% Such discrepancies as shown in the exhibit above establish that the placement pra, School District are inconsistent, and inequitable for students across the school sys Discrepancy: Total% - Spec Ed% -2% -10% -10% -~ C NA.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 63 Suspensions and Drop Outs. The rate and nature of suspended students and the number and nature of students who drop out varies across schools as well. For example, students are twice as likely to drop out of McClellan High School as they are from Parkview High School. In addition, students are far more likely to be suspended for misconduct from McOellan High School as from Fair High School. These data are illustrated in the following exhibits: Exhibit Ill.3.3.7 Annual Long Term Suspension Rates 1989-90 p e 1.50% +---------------------.-------------- ,, C 1.25% -----------------/-. ___\"_ ' __________ e 1.00% ...._ ______________\" \"/_ ____' -_,,,,_ _________ n / '\"' t 0.75% --------------,-,,---------------- a 0.50% +-I-----..,.-.,-\"--.-------,------------------ e 0.25% ,----------s,-------,,,\"~-------------------- g 0.00% _\n__ ____________ __,_ ________ -+----- 30.00% 1 p e 25.00% 1 C 20.00% - e n 15.00% - a 10.00% 1 g e 5.00% - 0.00% Central Fair Hall McClellan Little Rock High Schools Exhibit III.3.3.8 Annual Drop Out Rate Comparisons: 1988-89 Central Fair Hall McCtelln Little Rock High Schools Parkview Parkview  Total U White  Black Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 64 Consistent school district practices would be predicted if there were an established policy, framework for decisions on suspension, and uniform drop-out processing. No diversification of services among high schools was found to attend to measured differences in the student body clientele, nor were consistencies noted among schools in methods for handling such problems. Such absence of predicted configurations in school district practices reflect the inconsistency of policy and practice in the Little Rock School District. Finding 3.4: Promotion-retention practices are inconsistent Staff in schools report applying the same criteria when making retention and promotion decisions. In a random sample of retention reports from six elementary schools, there is a marked difference across schools in the results of the application of the reported criteria. Exhibit Ill.3.4.1 shows the differences. Grade one was selected for analysis. The percent of students retained ranges from a low of 52% to a high of 52%, with an average retention rate in the six sample schools of 22%. p 60.00% T e 50.00% 1 r C 40.00% - e 30.00% n T 20.00% ! a 10.00% .!. g e 0.00% Exhibit III.3.4.1 Percentage of Grade One Students Retained - Six Sample Schools: Little Rock, 1990 52.00% n 22.00% 5.20% Low Mean High Retentions vary significantly from school, particularly in grade 1. In several selected elementary schools, the number of first grade students retained in 1989-90 was particularly disparate, indicating inconsistency. This discrepancy in retention prac\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_489","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District, Educational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, First quarter report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District, Educational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, First quarter report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/489"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"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-r .u Little Rock School District February 25, 1991 TO: LRSD Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: 1 5001 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Monitoring Report on Incentive Schools Please find attached the Educational Equity Monitoring Report for the Incentive Schools. The report summarizes the findings from the first monitoring visits to the incentive schools. Each incentive school principal was asked to respond to the concerns listed in the monitoring report. review. Ho concerns were listed for Rightsell. The responses are attached for your 810 West Markham Street *  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374.3361 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Prepared By PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Little Rock, Arkansas December 1990 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 The Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan requires monitoring of the Incentive Schools by the Little Rock School  *   The committee is required to District Biracial Committee. monitor each incentive school once each quarter. Using a monitoring form developed by the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, the Biracial Committee conducted Each team school visits during October 1990 and November 1990. reviewed a school profile which contained basic information related to current conditions in the schools. This report is a summary of the school visits conducted by the LRSD Biracial Committee. 1.0 Separation by Race/Gender in School Programs At each school the monitors expected to see: * Racially balanced staff which reflects appropriate percentages * Racial/gender balance in staff assignments, programs, content areas, and grade level * School enrollment to be within the appropriate racial/ethnic range prescribed by the court order * Racial/gender enrollment of classrooms and courses to generally reflect the racial/gender composition of the school * Racial and gender enrollment of extended educational programs to generally reflect the racial/gender composition of the school Findings: All chools were within appropriate percentages for ertified staff, although the Rockefeller team noted the low number of black teachers assigned to Rockefeller. Noncertified staff percentages extend from 71% black at Stephens to 100% black at Ish and Rightsell. A scarcity of INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 2 black and white male teacher role models for students at the elementary level was evident. TABLE 1 INCENTIVE SCHOOL STAFF BY RACE 1990-91 Teachers Black White #/% Other #/% Total Non Certified Black #/% White #/% Total Garland 14/50% 14/50% 0/0% 28 9/53% 8/47% 17 Ish 12/57 o 9/43% 0/0% 21 13/93% 1/7% 14 Mitchell I \nhtsell Rockefeller Stephens 15/60 Q. 10/40% 0/0% 25 14/100 0/0 14 11/52% 9/30% 14/52% 10/48 20/67% 13/48% 0/0 o, *6 21 15/100% 0/0 15 1/3% 0/0% 30 33/83% 7/17% 40 27 12/71 6 5/29 17 Black Teachers may constitute 25-50% of the certified staff TABLE 2 INCENTIVE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT COMPARISON BY RACE (10-31-90) 1990-91 Pre-K K -6 Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell P I ack n/% 11/ 58% 13/ 93% White /% 7/ 37% 1/ 7% No Program No Program 41/ 41% Iv-.y T!/ o8 % 6/ 32% Other /% 1/ 5% 0/ 0% 1/ 1% 0/ 0% Total 19 14 100 19 Black /% 16/ 84% 16/ 100% 31/ 86% 32/ 97% 11/ 56% 28/ 90% White H/i 3/ 16% 0/ 0% 5/ 14% 1/ 3% 26/ 44% 2/ 7% other S/% 0/ 0% 0/ 0% 0/ 0% 0/ 0% 0/ 0% 1/ 3% Total 19 16 36 33 59 31 Black 192/ 90% 124./ 98% 153/ 88% 158/ 99% 159/ 76% 163/ 95% White /% 13/ 6% 1/ 2% 21/ 12% 0/ 0% 4 5/ 22% 8/ 5% Other 9/ 4% 0/ 0% 0/ 0% 1/ 1% 5/ 2% 6/ 4% Total 214 127 174 159 209 171 Grand Total 252 157 210 192 368 221 The acceptable range for black student enrollment (K-6) in arfia schools is 51 percent - 76.5 percent. All schools exceeded the acceptable range for area school student enrollment except Rockefeller. The student enrollment at Rockefeller is 68% black, 30%'white, and 2% other.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 3 Responses from Principal(s): 2.0 The principal at Ish School understood that one of her roles was to recruit white students. she has tried to do so with little success. She said that The school biracial committee was devising a plan to sell the school to white families. Curriculum At each school the monitors expected to see: * A culturally diverse curriculum that mirrors the student population * A scoped, sequenced, multicultural, interdisciplinary and bias free curriculum * An adequacy of materials and equipment to support the curriculum * Varied teaching strategies that match the learning styles of the students * Current and accurate documentation of student progress * Teachers demonstrating an understanding of a multiculturally infused curriculum * Displays, bulletin boards, materials, and publications that reflect the cultural diversity of the student population r'xndings: The Garland Biracial Committee visited five classrooms and responded positively to all items in this area. Additional comments from teachers interviewed indicated they had adequate materials, including multicultural curriculum guides. Displays of student work, bulletin boards and teachers plan books verified the implementation of the multicultural curriculum. Monitors observed students actively engaged in classroom instruction. At all incentive schools, the seating patterns in the classrooms observed, promoted interaction among students of varying racial/ethnic backgrounds to the degree possible. Total realization of this goal was hampered by the low enrollment of white students.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 4 student records at Garland, Rightsell and Stephens were current and complete. However, it was reported that Academic Skills Development Plans (ASDPs) at Ish and Mitchell were not available in all observed classrooms. At Mitchell, an ASDP located in the student's permanent record folder did not show documentation of mastered skills. Reports from Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, and Stephens indicated that the Student Educational Plans (SEPs) were The Rockefeller team reported developed for each student. that in most classrooms visited student Individual Education Plans (lEPs) and Academic Skills Development Plans were not current or complete. The Ish team reported that materials and equipment were excellent, that the multicultural guides were in every classroom visited, and that all children were However, a need for participating in classroom activities. more black publications on natural sciences was noted. At Mitchell the team reported that multicultural guides were visibly in use and that teachers and students expressed pride in the content. The team believed the bulletin boards and displays in the school and classrooms were excellent reflections of the implementation of the multicultural curriculum and various teaching strategies to accommodate different learning styles. The Rockefeller staff members reported having adequate materials to deliver the curriculum. During the team's classroom visits, students were very actively involved in classroom instruction with a great deal of student interaction occurring. The team reported a variety of materials reflecting the racial/gender difference of the student population. Monitors noted that teachers observed at Stephens had and were using the multicultural curriculum guides. Multicultural materials were in use in most classrooms visited, and a wide variety of ethnic and multicultural These displays art was displayed throughout the school. were representative of the racial/ethnic and gender  ' ' The classroom seating differences of the student body. and while patterns provided for racial/ethnic interaction, students were involved in classroom instruction, monitors noted that \"some II were more actively involved than others. The majority of teachers visited maintained current and However, some student magazine . ...mplete student records, tests were unavailable. Short term goals were listed on the Student Educational Plans (SEPs) in all monitored classrooms .INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 5 Responses from Principal(s): The principal at Ish reported that fifty students attended the LRSD summer school for either enrichment or to maintain skills. The tuition for these students was paid by the LRSD and was included in the school Saturday school serves only a few children budget. because the District does not provide transportation. Therefore, practically all of the children who attend are ones who can walk to school. On Saturday, November 3, thirty-one children attended\nfewer than thirty-one attended on previous Saturdays. 3.0 School/District Initiated Honors and Awards At each school the monitors expected to see:  A variety of awards and honors * Written procedures and requirements governing honors and awards  Methods for communicating requirement to all students * A process to evaluate the honors and awards program * Plans to eliminate any racial/gender inequities - Visible evidence that non-athletic awards and honors are .* valued as much as athletic awards and honors (secondary schools) Findings: were All teams reported that a variety of awards and honors provided for academic achievement and citizenship. The Stephens team reported that a variety of simple incentive programs were used to ensure wide participation of most students. It was reported by the Rockefeller team that more awards could be encouraged. It was reported by all teams that procedures were evident to ensure that students were apprised of The Rockefeller requirements governing honors and awards. principal made personal announcements and conducted meetings inform students about award opportunities.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 6 The Stephens team reported that students were aware of and knew the requirements for academic and behavior honor rolls. According to the Stephens team, procedures were evident to assure that students were apprised of information regarding the various opportunities in educational programs\nthe school initiates its own academic competitions based upon the philosophy of the principal. Responses from Principal(s)\nThe principal at Ish commented that in order for more students to be eligible for an award, the principal awarded certificates to those students who had been present ninety-five (95%) percent of the time. 4.0 Committees At each school the monitors expected to see: * Racial/gender composition of committees generally reflects the school community Findings: As evidenced by information listed in the school ,\u0026lt; t\u0026gt;j.ofiles, committees appointments reflected that members had knowledge of educational programs for a varied student population. Committee members were selected on a voluntary basis and by request, according to interviewed staff at some schools. Responses from Principal(s): (None given) 5.0 Extracurricular Activities At each school the monitors expected to see: * Extracurricular activities generally balanced by race and gender leadership positions generally balanced by race and gender when appropriate ' Recruitment practices to promote participation of all races in extracurricular activitiesINCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 7 Findings: Five of the six monitored schools (Ish, Garland, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens) reported that participation in extracurricular activities included activity in a Host and Hostess Club and a Just Say No Club. These activities generally reflected the schools' population. The Mitchell staff reported to the monitoring team that an adequate job was being done in the area of student participation in extracurricular activities, and that by the next monitoring visit, additional activities would be developed. Responses from Principal(s)\nIt was also reported by the principal at Ish that the Incentive schools were in the process of developing an athletic program where skills could be learned in sports such as tennis, and schools would compete against each other, this area. There were no other team comments regarding 6.0 Student Achievement/Assessment At each school the monitors expected to see: * All students' strengths and weaknesses assessed and their educational programs planned accordingly X . * Evidence that graduation/promotion/retention rates are monitored and analyzed to reduce disparities in achievement. * Strategies to close the disparity in test scores among identifiable groups Findings: When test results were examined for the visited schools, evidence was not available in the monitoring reports that the achievement of white students remained stable or increased as black student achievement improved. Monitors reported that data to compare students, year to year, was not readily available at 'me schools. Some monitors stated that a comparison couldn't be made until the 1991 test scores were available.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 8 Goals and strategies were developed to decrease the achievement differences between black and white students at most of the monitored schools. strategies, as documented in the school profiles, given for the norm referenced test, the Arkansas Achievement were Minimum Performance Test. Strategies for improving student achievement were described for various subjects and grade levels in the Annual School Improvement Plans. When retention rates were examined and compared, no differences were evident between identifiable groups of students at some of the schools visited. Very few students were retained at some schools as evidenced in the school profiles. In schools where differences were evident, the identifiable groups were most often black males and/or first grade students. Responses from Principal(s): The principal of Ish reported that an intense effort was being made to work individually with at-risk students to remediate necessary skills and to get them on level, both relative to test scores and grade level work. Students who need additional assistance are identified\nthe teachers provide appropriate teaching strategies\naides work with the students, and if indications are observed that this is not providing necessary instruction, the Pupil Services Team considers the _Ludent's situation and appropriate actions are taken by the team. 7.0 Special Education At each school the monitors expected to see: * Clear, well-defined referral, assessment and placement procedures * Special Education facilities that are comparable to other educational programs on the campus and integrated into the total school environment * Sufficient textbooks, materials, and equipment available for all students to participate in classroom learning experiences * Strategies to decrease any overrepresentation of minoritiesINCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 9 Findings: Monitoring reports from Ish and Mitchell schools reflected all positive responses in this area. In these schools monitors noted that the special education facilities were comparable to other classrooms, were appropriately located in regard to the total school environment and were adequately furnished with materials and equipment. Teachers at these schools reported that the referral system involved the Pupil Services Team (PST) and other teachers who monitored and assessed student needs. At Ish, teachers interviewed believed that there were no students with special needs that were not being served. There is no special education classroom at Rightsell. The special resource teacher is assigned to Rightsell and a nearby elementary school on half-time basis. At Garland, the self-contained classrooms were well integrated into the total school (located on different levels). The special resource teacher was not interviewed because the half-time schedule provided for these services in the afternoon only, responses were positive. All other The special resource teacher at Rockefeller was not interviewed, but the monitors responded positively to all items in this area. The committee report for Stephens contained only one comment. This was in regard to strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to special education. They reported that, according to the principal, students were carefully screened before being placed in special resource classes. Responses from Principal(s): The principal at Garland indicated to the monitors that resource students and Community-Based Instruction (CBI) students participated in several activities such as: collating and stapling materials and newsletters for distribution, awards for most improvement, the KGAR radio station and other school functions. The principal at Ish said that students in the self-contained class participated in many programs including art, music, and assemblies.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 10 8.0 Gifted and Talented Education At each school the monitors expected to see: * Students identified through referral, standardized test results, academic performance, and other criteria deemed appropriate by the school staff * A planned and organized strategy to address any problem of underrepresentation of minorities in gifted and talented programs * Sufficient textbooks, materials, and equipment available to deliver the curriculum to all students in the class * Gifted and talented facilities that are comparable to other educational programs on the campus and integrated into the total school environment Findings: The team monitoring Rightsell neither visited the classroom for gifted and talented students, nor the teacher\ntherefore, no responses are available concerning the Gifted and Talented (G/T) Program at that school. In all of the incentive schools, except Stephens and Rightsell, monitors reported that strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to G/T programs are evident. However, teams from Mitchell, Stephens, and Garland were the only ones that reported the enrollment of white students in the G/T program. Three of the eleven students in the G/T class at Ish are male. The monitors at Stephens indicated that although all students are screened on the same basis for entrance into the G/T Program, the low white population makes it difficult to draw a conclusion relative to eliminating disproportionate student assignment to that program. All monitored G/T classrooms have adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum, ording to observations reported by the monitoring - jMS . The facilities for G/T students are comparable to those of the campuses in general and are designed to meet the needs of the students served.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 11 With the exception of the G/T classroom at Mitchell, monitors considered the classrooms as integrated into the total school environment. ' The facility at Mitchell is housed in an extension to the building and is separated from the other classrooms in the main building and from the ones located in a separate building on the campus. Responses from Principal(s): (None given) 9.0 Staff Development At each school the monitors expected to see: * Staff development programs designed to enable staff members to fulfill the school mission and purpose * Staff development provided at a variety of places and times * Appropriate inservice provided to enable each staff member to understand his/her role and responsibility in the implementation of the districtwide desegregation plan * Documentation of staff development participation Findings: The monitoring reports revealed that staff development related to educational equity had been provided. However, the monitoring reports did not indicate how many staff members were involved in the training, nor the kinds of staff development that had been made available. At Rockefeller the teachers expressed a need for more training in the use of the multicultural curriculum guides. Responses were limited regarding staff, development activities related to equitable staffing practices. At Mitchell it was shared that staff development in this area was sufficient, but at Garland evidence was nonexistent. Responses from Principal(s): me principal of Ish reported that in addition to the twenty days of staff development and the District-wide Desegregation Inservice days, staff development inservices i-re presented at each monthly staff meeting, which included but was not limited to, testing preparation and conflictINCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 12 It was shared that the topics selected were the management. results of a survey conducted by the Director of Staff Development in the spring of 1990. The principal of Rockefeller expressed concern that time was not available for staff development activities related to equitable staffing practices, and that there were no plans to include these activities into the schedules. Garland the principal stated that she had no control over hiring. At 10.0 Parental Involvement At each school the monitors expected to see: * Evidence that the school reaches out to all segments of the total parent population * The school provides a continuous flow of information to parents regarding all aspects of their child's school performance. * School functions scheduled to accommodate all parent groups * Opportunities to develop leadership skills among all parent groups s  * Transportation provided for parents who need the service when financially possible it Documented evidence showing how all identifiable groups of parents have been actively solicited * School functions scheduled in community facilities near identifiable groups of parents Findings: Overall parental involvement of all identifiable groups of parents at the incentive schools was limited. The major concerns were more involvement from black and non-black parents, lack of transportation for working r^arents, and an inactive or unorganized PTA. The turns' team indicated that many strategies were being uoed to solicit parent participation, but the process bad produced very little success.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 13 Documentation regarding methods to encourage parents in school and in home supported educational activities was evident at all incentive schools, schools reported that some contact was made with All parents to communicate positive as well as negative information related to student achievement and/or behavior. At Garland the teachers stated that they were making an attempt to make positive as well as negative contacts related to student behavior. At Mitchell a procedure had been established that required each teacher to make two positive calls before any negative calls could be made. According to the reports of Ish, Garland, Mitchell, and Rockefeller, patrons and/or parents of the incentive schools did actively participate in the writing of the local school plans. Responses from Principal(s): The principal of Ish indicated that each teacher was to make one positive phone call to a parent each week regarding student achievement/behavior. It was also shared that every letter or bulletin that was sent home was numbered with a tear-off section at the bottom for students to return. this section was returned, documentation. it was kept on file as When The principal further reported that Ish had established a parent center that is utilized by all identifiable groups of parents.  These same parents chaperone field trips, tutor, serve as room parents, and participate in PTA. She also shared that there was 100% participation on student conference day. The School profile from Stephens suggested that very little parental involvement was apparent. The principal expressed in the report that he did not believe in the hands of parents\" to encourage involvement. holding that parents should be responsible on their own. He feels He stated also that the opportunity for involvement is always present, but the patrons and parents of that particular school community were not responsive. 11.0 Student Discipline At each school the monitors expected to see: * No disproportionality among identifiable groups of students when discipline sanctions are analyzedINCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 14 * Teachers receiving staff development and training to become more effective in discipline management and classroom management * The discipline program monitored, evaluated and updated to decrease any disproportionality among identifiable groups of students by race and gender Findings: Monitors of all incentive schools indicated that information related to student disciplinary policies has been distributed to parents and students. Garland School sent a handbook to each parent. Ish School has on file forms signed by parents and students indicating receipt of handbooks. posted in most rooms. At each incentive school classroom rules are Suspension and expulsion rates are generally representative of the student population, according to the monitors at all incentive schools except Rightsell. The team at Rightsell felt that the school enrollment should be considered and did not draw any conclusions regarding these rates. expulsions. Ish and Garland reported no suspensions or Monitors indicated that classroom instruction in all incentive schools proceeded in an orderly manner. However, the team at Stephens considered the observation time too short to allow the monitors to fully observe the ' progress of instruction. In all of the incentive schools except Stephens, the monitoring teams indicated that the teachers were very active and visible in directing/controlling students. The team that visited Stephens stated that it needed to return to the school for further observation. With the exception of Garland and Ish, where the principals intentionally stayed out of the halls to allow the monitors free access to classrooms, all teams indicated that the principals were also very active and visible in directing/controlling students. Strategies to eliminate disproportionate sanctions among identifiable student groups are evident at f.tsell. Garland, Rockefeller, and Ish, according to monitors. The teams at Mitchell and Stephens declined to draw conclusions relative to the evidence of such strategies.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 15 Responses from Principal(s): The principal at Ish reported that all referred discipline problems are handled via a conference with the parent, oftentimes with the parent, student, and principal participating together. 12.0 Building Leadership/Management At each school the monitors expect to see: * Clear, concise and well-written improvement goals * Evidence that a handbook/policy clearly states expectations and norms for student conduct and that these policies are distributed and explained * Documentation of school-home communication and contact * Parents from all identifiable groups active in the decision making process * Evidence that an on-going review of procedures regarding expectations for student conduct occurs * A physical environment that supports the goals of quality teaching and learning, i.e., clean buildings, no debris, orderly halls, no graffiti X * Strategies established to prevent one-race classes and review of the strategies to determine effectiveness a * Evidence that the principal monitors the curriculum * Strategies to increase the number of minority students in upper level courses/class groups * Evidence which indicates that all students are served by the guidance program * A system to receive information from former students and patrons regarding the quality/needs of the total program Findings: All six teams responded positively that the schools had clear, concise, well-written statements of specific improvement goals. One monitoring team said that mere specifics regarding inservice for new staff could be added to the school improvement goals.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 16 All monitoring teams reported that the schools had appropriate strategies for attaining improvement goals. Although the Ish team members said that this was difficult to measure at this time. Five positive responses were made regarding the schools having an effective home/school communication program. At Ish school a memorandum was sent home with children each week\nand at this school, a parent survey was conducted at the end of the first nine weeks. Rockefeller the team said that the staff effort to At communicate was commendable. At this school notes were sent home about open house\nnumerous letters went home from individual teachers, and special announcements were sent home telling parents about the awards assembly and criteria for awards. At Stephens there was no apparent two-way feedback between staff and parents. There also was no effort to assess the effectiveness of the communication process prior to this monitoring visit. All monitored schools had available student handbooks which published clear statements of expectations for student conduct. At one school there was evidence that students and parents had signed a form stating that they had read and understood the student handbook. Evidence was seen at two schools that expectations for student conduct were posted in the classrooms. Comments about the campus and buildings were very positive. \"beautiful II If Very pleasant, and II It \"cheerful,\" excellently maintained fl II colorful, It were used to describe the campuses and buildings. orderly and the students were well behaved. The hallways were All positive responses were recorded related to the friendliness and helpfulness of the office staff. In schools where one-race classes existed, strategies to prevent or eliminate one-race classes were evident. Some reports mentioned impetus from the Little Rock School District central office staff was needed to eliminate one-race classes. All six monitoring teams reported that there was vidence curriculum monitoring occurred. Three school reports indicated that the principals had made specific efforts to monitor in the classrooms.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 17 The Garland team members said that strategies to increase the number of minority students enrolled in upper level courses were evident if you consider the extended day and Saturday activities as enrichment. Regarding this issue, the Ish Principal reported that the staff tries to inspire students to prepare so that they will be able to take upper level courses as they progress in school from grade level to grade level. The Ish staff also encourages students to participate in the Mathematics Olympiad and gifted programs. The team consensus for Mitchell School said that this item was not applicable to the school. The Rightsell monitoring team reacted positively to this issue\nbut they made no comment on this item. The Stephens team members gave no positive nor negative response to the item\ninstead they wrote not applicable. The Rockefeller team members reacted positively to the item, but they also wrote not applicable unless you include gifted in which case there was good evidence. At Mitchell school the counselor was not available on the day of the visit. Other teachers mentioned that the counselor visited all classrooms and worked with students help. out of the classrooms when they needed individual One team mentioned that one counselor to three hundred student ratio was a problem. At Rockefeller school the counselor was unable to take students from class for one-on-one help. The Incentive School Plan calls for no pullouts. According to the monitoring team, it was difficult for the counselor to do one-on-one and group work with the children. ------*  ' --------- School three days per week. The counselor is assigned to Rockefeller' Most staff monitored were unaware of the availability of information from former students to improve the program. At Ish school the parent surveys helped with a little data for this area. Responses from Principal(s): Principals identified the following monitoring activities: review of plan book review of grade distribution at the end of each grading period conferences with students and teachers The Ish principal reported that the Ish teachers had a major role in setting the goals of the school.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT 1990-91 Page 18 She also said that when a student had a discipline problem and was sent to the school office, she reviewed the appropriate part of the discipline policy allegedly violated. The parent surveys at the end of the first nine weeks at Ish School included some items relative to curriculum monitoring. She did not say specifically what data was collected relative to this issue. All Ish staff, according to the principal, try to inspire students to prepare for upper level courses. Ish staff also encouraged students to participate in the Mathematics Olympiad and gifted and talented program. The Ish principal also has plans to generate a survey that will obtain information from former students. She has quite a few former students who come by the school to discuss their education at Ish School.\ndid not report specific data collected from former students. She Other Concerns/Comments: The school teams identified other concerns that were not related to specific items on the monitoring form, concerns are as follows: Those There is a need for direct recruitment of white students by central office personnel. Although no incidents have been reported, there are safety concerns for students and staff because of the dismissal time for the extended day during the central standard time period because it is dark when the students leave. There was concern for teachers and principals in all incentive schools \"holding up\" and Saturday activities. under demands of extended day The team for Mitchell stated: \"The environment at Mitchell is very positive and effective. We cannot help but say if other schools were like Mitchell, it would have a positive effect on teaching and learning and narrow the racial imbalance. 11INCENTIVE SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER REPORT PRINCIPALS' RESPONSES 1!To\nFrom: Subject: Mr. James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Cheryl A. Simmons, Principal Date: /U4- Response to Concern Identified During November Sth Monitoring Visit November 30, 1990 Please find the identified concern listed below with the response following. 10.1 Parent involvement is on a limited basis. Will utilize PTA Council to get PTA organized. Garland's parents are involved in their children's education through working cooperatively with teachers in formulating Student Education Plans. Garland's parents also serve on its Bi-racial Advisory Committee, School Improvement Committee, Guidance Committee, and Discipline Management Committee. Parents have also been trained as APPLE facilitators and will be leading APPLE workshops this year, parents have attended Parent Center workshops. Several Garland Mrs. Essie Middleton, of the Little Rock PTA Council, is holding a workshop/planning session for Garland parents from 6:00-7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, December 4th to organize and plan for Garland's PTA for the 1990-91 school year. With the assistance of Mrs. Middleton and Mrs. Delores Egeston, Garland's parents will devleop a plan to organize a strong PTA which will provide continuity from year to year and serve as a valuable tool in recruiting parental involvement and improving communication.ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR December 3, 1990 TO: Mr. James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development FROM: Lonnie S. Dean, Principal RE: Monitoring Team Visit - Response(s) 1.0 Non-certified staff has been all black since Ish School opened. They were allowed to remain when all other positions were vacated, try to fill vacant positions as needed with non-blacks. I will 1.2 The Bi-Racial Team is working on strategies to recruit more white students. We have enrolled two (2) white students since the team's visit. (We now have a total of five white students and one-hundred thirty five black students in Grades K-6). 1.4 The enrollment for Extended Day classes is one-hundred ten (110) out of a total of one-hundred twenty three (123) students enrolled in grades 1-6. Only thirteen (13) students do not participate in the Extended Day classes Monday through Friday. Our Saturday enrollment represents 83% of our walking students. District does not provide transportation for Saturday classes. Our 2.2 All ASDP's are available in each classroom now. Grades 4, 5, and 6. 2.5 Staff have displayed additional pictures in the areas of the sciences: i.e., medical field, lawyers, engineers, scientist, politicians, educators and businesses. 8.1 We are in the process of adding two (2) black males to the Gifted and Talented program. All paper work is completed.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Mitchell Elementary School 24 \u0026amp; Battery Streets Phone 375-6931 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM December 3, 1990 James Jennings. Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development hita Hudspeth, Principal fchell Elementary Response to Monitoring Concerns of November 8 First, I would like to express my appreciation for the comments registered in this report. While there is always room for improvement, I am proud of the program we have in place. The written student education plans in the format requested are new for most teachers. I am continuing to work with staff members individually and in groups to ensure that the plans are relevant and helpful. could vary depending on the student and teachers. Initiation dates All teachers, however, should be documenting when students have completed identified skills. with teachers individually. Again, I am working Part of the December faculty meeting will address these concerns. The need for increased parental Involvement is ongoing. We have increased attendance at meetings this year as well as a dramatic increase in volunteer hours thus far. While we have made improvement, we will continue to work in this area. jB LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Rockefeller Elementary School 700 East 17th Phone 374-1226 Lillie Rock, Arkansas 72206 To: .1 m III B a .1 e n n i n g a , Navembtr 27, 1990 Aaaocialt Sup er i n tun dent far Descgregat i an Koni tor i ng and F-'ragrain DkvkI opnient From: Anne Mangan', Principal, Packafel 1 er School Sub j ec t\nResponse to concern of f i rat mon i tor i nej visit f r oni the Little Roel-: School District Biracial Advisory Commi ttet? On November 9, visit from the 1990, Pocb:efeller Bchoal had the LRSD Bi racial Advi sor y Commi tt?t?. first, monitoring On the conf tir ent.B, there was on!y one area of cancern Nineteen classes were visited and I was told that e:i pressed ' ei: i t to me. four teachers did not have records current or Educat i onal understandi ng. Equity Monitoring they report. were i ncomp1et e. further ver i f i es T fl e t fi a t on all answers which As I read the report I see that we received II would iiave indicated a yes H except the one mentioned (2.2). There were comments positive response on several i terns and a concern only at the end of the request to comment on the concern regarding report. I here is no safety or on the fact that the materials needed to be prepared for the monitoring team was sent, to the school only four days before the scheduled visit. This was not. enough time to adequately compile all documentation. You have been selective would like for me to for me to determine in choosing the criteria respond to in this report. i terns It is that you d i f f i c u 11 comments were selected flow they were chosen and others not. since-? some I wi 1 1 areas wi til i terns requested. respond to those 1.0 The i nterviewi ng i ntervi ewi ng staf f team. at Rockef el 1 er Bchool was seiec ted Each staff member by an process. Two of the went through an extensive original staff decided that they could not commit to tlie incentive were bl ack. Seven new black teachers or speci ali sts members v4io school plan were selected to be a part, of the Rockefeller staff. Of the seven new bl ack cer t i f i ed change to another fl a 1 a n c e t fi e s t a f f. staf f, four were allowed school file result by Numan Resources to with no regard for the need to racially a staff which is 297. black. It. is my understanding that this percentage, is in a n a c c eptable many black applicants range. vacancy. I have kept, in I plan to continue although not desirable. are available whenever close contact to interview as I have a teaching w i t f I Robert R o b i n son and interviewed every applicant me in the past. that he or Numan Resources has sent 2. 1 The? comment made about the need for nci ghb or hood and community l3 y k i n d e r g a r t e n younger children and to first grarie teachers awareness be-i'nre be taught more about being expected ntudy about the world was the general -feeling of those teacher to Thf'?y arf? r e q u i red t o folio w 11) e however and do so as directed. about using the required materi als. multi cultural They have had agreement of they teach. They just curri culum gu ides adequate inservice are not in total before school plus its appropriateness for the very young children that Twenty days of inservice have already been provided one other additional day. I am, at the determi ne if present any are not t i me, checking all teacher Mastery dates will be checked current, up-dated, and on a regular basis. records to complete. 2. S.vf I have suggested that a to better plan lessons would be desirable. usi ng staff development inservice on how t he mu 11 i cu 11.ur a 1 curriculum guides very helpful i f the .1 have also stated that I think it would be curr i culum supervisors could cross ref erence the material in different, subject areas. It. is my understanding that the January staff development day for incentive schools will be devoted to the indivi dual needs for teachers to feel to tie the school, 3, 1 More offered to year, turn in I suggestions which their greatest need. awards, than we have ever will gi ven students at Rockefeller School for i nd i cate before, have what have the 1990-91 asked they been school Students with straight A's and honor roll students for the first, nine weeks grading period have their names boldly displayed on the front hall wal 1 , week A reception students following the end of the first were invited to attend Thc-3 students were presented school Student II P. T.A,) , a and sti cker/badge. ch i1dren their parents. were in their honor was held the nine weeks. Parents of these and a large number Principal 's honored. were present, achievement ribbons (purchased by the Award penci 1 and a Refreshments followed for This activity PIans to was very have a Super all students well received. 87 recept i on students will be repeated at ttie end of each nine weeks. for honor each A I good Monday citizen of the week is announced over the intercom receiving morni ng, a students are gol d star The to be students chosen are honored with a further recognized Super Citizen II worn during by having the day/week, at lunch on that day. sign and helium balloons a special table by The set a centerpiece the Classes that playground all display good behavior in the week are awarded an extra period at the end of the contest time. cafeteria and on 15 minutes recess Students, i n behavior chart for some classes. who have no the week:, checks are allowed to bring their on their 1 unch trays to the classroom and have lunch with their teacher. Plans have been made with our partner. the Arkansa Gazette, to take the 6th grade honor students to the Gazette at the end of the yoar for a tour and lunch.Tbi? Arkansas Bazettt? wi 11 mine tc5 the make picture badge tor the honored students. awc^rds reception and help by providing some of the refreshments, to get special T-shirts for the Straight A They will al so They are also trying students. Bf.udnnts check V'jIio have proven to end oT the on citizenship on the report he good cards Oi tt aeppi hy having no will be honored at the year. Grades wi11 not be considered in this area. Perfect attendance awards will also be given. The monitors from businesses. suggested long term incentives uch as scholarships proposals that, have not I believe that this is one of the controversial date. I personally have no been approved by the courts as of this would certainly welcome any way of offering such an i ncenti ve. one of the monitoring team scholarships that could be offered members or obtai n such an offered to all i ncenti ve students on but feel an very cost. 1 y. suggestions about how that, it would have to equitable basis and it might I by to be be 7. P 1 e f t I am not aware Rockefeller or of any student. white nr black: who has plans to leave for reasons of special education needs met. team have members mentioned this not been able to identify I as not having think that, one of the monitoring being a student any s u c f i s t. u d e n t. in speech but I 10. 1 c1 assroom f unct i ons Teachers simply and was parents 1i mi ted. stated bei ng t. h a t a fl 1 e parent partici pation to Th i s i B participate 1 n in the school families have both away to volunteer p arent s work i ng i n t fl e partly di.ie to the fact that classroom. and they are Some tr ansportati on problems but. whenever this problem unable to parents do many get. have transportation has been o f fered pl armed. Act. i vi t i es to the parent. or is identified, a home visit is such ct 55 P. T.A. and after regular working hours open houses are held 10.2 the Whenever vi si t for anyone are to our total unable to the parent. ti me there 12. 1 a home visit, is made immediately stated, qi.iestion the purpose. c o n c e r n a n d i n t. e r e s t come to the it might We never try school, be no phone. members. Inservice on General are 1 the purpose and reason for There is A home i n 11 r e absolutely no reason vi si t student the school to make a c a n reinforce If a parent is can certainly come to surprise visit and the unannounced is j f there 1 55 an individual basis is held for information is assisted on their given as a only great, need and all new Staffneeds as determined by their assigned grade level and group but. teachers i n51.r (..icted on the assi gnment.12,3 Every effort is made to provide communication program at Rockefeller- an effective home/school School . will have to -further a goal. dates to ex p 1 cAi n i'low our- The monitoring team ef-forts are failing, to meet We are constantly notifying parents of up-coming events, aval 1atale, acti vi ti es .1 nf ormat i ve remember, acti vi ties t o P. T.A. meetings of i nterest.. articles are and In attend, entertai nment, sent to addi tion, parent, and news seminar5 any bul1et i ns other wi th from teachers, every Thursday. Parents parents and numerous letters I fail to see are sent a behavior report on their child anything but promote good home to school how any of these things could do communicati on.i-z ROCK SCHOOL D ISTRICT Stephens Elementary School 3700 West 18  Phone 663-8374  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 December 3, 1990 TO: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development FROM: Stanton L. Strauss, Principal, Stephens Incentive School SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO CONCERNS FOR FIRST MONITORING VISIT 1.1. There are five black males on the staff: one P.E. teacher, one music substitute, one instructional aide, and two custodians. I followed the interview process as established by LRSD as well as reviewing personnel files in the department of Human Resources. The District has hired a full time employee to rectify the recruitment problem of lack of black males as well as black females in the District. 2.3. All students are involved through direct questioning, guided practice. and independent practice. More explanation is needed for ..more 'actively' involved... than others.\" Communication between student and teacher is to be done according to individual learning styles. Consideration also needs to be given to the amount of time the observers were actively\" observing whole classroom instruction and what teaching strategies were being used. X . 3.2. 3.4. report Stephens is in compliance with article 2.3. According to the According to the appraisal form Stephens's students do know the requirements for academic and behavior honors, yet this still is a concern. I don't understand these conflicting statements. to promote academic success. The entire focus is I see this as a very positive goal. Steps toward achievement must be taken one at a time. Teachers must start where the students are and not where we want them to be. can get all students working at grade level, that will be quite an accomplishment. Then we can go up from there. Here again I am reading conflicting statements. difficult. with article 3.4. If we Responding to this is According to the monitoring report Stephens is in compliance A statement reads that recognition of as many students as possible.\" attention is given to as possible how can more effort be given. If we are doing as much Stephens recognizies students through academic success, behavior success, good deed success, is done both publicly and privately. This LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOLS PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Little Rock, Arkansas September 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1.0 Separation by Race/Gender in School Programs 2.0 Curriculum 3.0 School/District Initiated Honors and Awards 4.0 Committees 5.0 Extended Day Educational Opportunities 6.0 Student Achievement/Assessment 7.0 Resource Education Programs 8.0 Gifted and Talented Education 9.0 Staff Development 10.0 Parental Involvement 11.0 Student Discipline PAGE 1 1 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 12.0 Building Leadership/Management 9 Key: SP = School Profile O I D Observation Interview DocumentationLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1991-92 SCHOOL Grade Level(s) DATE PRINCIPAL NUMBER OF CLASSES VISITED MONITOR(S) Observers are recruired to complete the comment section for each criterion. Please print observations and evidence in sufficient detail to indicate positive practices and areas in need of improvement. Observers should review the School Profile prior to completing this form. CRITERIA CIRCLE ONE 1.0 Separation by Race/Gender in School Programs SP 1.1 The composition of the school staff ensures that students have access to, and contact with, a varied staff of certified and non-certified personnel. COMMENTS: YES NO 2.0 Curriculum The school provides a curriculum that is reflective of cultural differences. Local and/or state-developed. course content guides enhance multi-cultural content in all curriculum areas. O/I 2.1 In classrooms observed, the teachers have adequate materials and equipment to deliver and use the multi-cultural curriculum. COMMENTS: YES NO \\Educational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 2 2.2 Current and complete student records are maintained in the classroom and school office to monitor the progress in achievement of the individual learner, (i.e. grade books, reading folders, math folders. Permanent Record Cards, interim reports, report cards, student educational plans and Academic Skills Development Plans) COMMENTS: YES NO O 2.3 All students are actively involved in classroom instruction. COMMENTS: ____________________ _________ YES NO 2.4 There is evidence that the multicultural curriculum is being implemented. 0 2.4.1 Bulletin boards, publications, and productions throughout the school (including the media center) reflect the racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body. COMMENTS: YES NO O 2.4.2 Bulletin boards, publications, and productions in the classroom reflect the racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body. COMMENTS: YES NO O 2.4.3 Evidence of student achievement which reflects varying teaching strategies is widely displayed. COMMENTS: YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring \" for Incentive Schools Page 3 O/I 2.5 Hands-on discovery and exploration approaches are used to enhance the learning of science and math concepts. COMMENTS: _____________ ___________________ YES NO 2.6 I Special activities such as academic clubs, field trips, etc., are used to reinforce the academic program. COMMENTS: YES NO O/I 2.7 Achieving students who work well with other students, as well as students with outstanding academic averages, are used as peer tutors. COMMENTS: YES NO 3.0 School/District Initiated Honors and Awards The school ensures that no student is denied access to being selected for honors and awards through establishment of non-biased and equitable policies and procedures. SP A variety of awards and honors is provided in areas such as scholarship, citizenship, sports, school and community service, choral and instrumental music, attendance, clubs, and organizations. COMMENTS: ' ' . - YES NO 0/D 3.2 Procedures are evident to assure that students are apprised of requirements governing honors and awards. COMMENTS: YES NO 3.1Educational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 4 I/D 3.3 Procedures are evident to assure that students are apprised of information regarding various opportunities in educational programs. COMMENTS: _____________________________________ YES NO I 3.4 The offerings and procedures regarding honors and awards are evaluated regularly for equity and to determine if new awards are necessary to meet student needs. COMMENTS: ________________________________ YES NO 4.0 Committees SP/I The school staff ensures that appointments to all school based committees are made in a non-biased and equitable manner which results in committees that have knowledge of educational programs for a varied student population. COMMENTS: _________________________________________________ YES NO 5.0 Extended Dav Educational Opportunities The school provides and encourages participation by all students in extracurricular/co-curricular activities. D/I 5.1 Extended day activities are directly related to the objectives of each SEP and adjusted to meet the  needs of the students.  COMMENTS: YES NO SP/I 5.2 The majority of the student population participates in extended day activities. COMMENTS: ________________________ YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 5 D 5.3 Parents are adequately informed about extended'day activities. COMMENTS: YES NO 6.0 Student Achievement/Assessment The school staff implements non-discriminatory procedures for administration, analysis, tests. and use of standardized SP 6.1 When test results are examined, achievement of white students remains stable or increases as black student achievement improves. COMMENTS: YES NO SP 6.2 Goals and strategies are developed and implemented to improve student achievement using the following measures: ... norm referenced tests ... Arkansas Minimum Performance Test ... grade distribution ... Classroom Monitoring Report COMMENTS: YES NO 7.0 Resource Education Programs 7.1 Strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to special education are evident. COMMENTS: YES NO 7.2 In special education classrooms observed, the teachers have adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. COMMENTS: YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 6 8.0 Gifted and Talented Education SP/I 8.1 Strategies to increase the number of students assigned to gifted and talented are evident. COMMENTS: _______________ YES NO O/I 8.2 In gifted and talented classrooms observed, the teachers have adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. COMMENTS: __________________ YES NO 9.0 Staff Development The staff development plan for the school demonstrates commitment to educational equity. I 9.1 Staff development activities related to educational equity have been provided and are ongoing. COMMENTS: ____________________ YES NO SP/I 9.2 Staff development activities in teaching strategies for multi-cultural curriculum delivery have been provided. COMMENTS:  _____ ____ ______________ YES NO I 9.3 Staff development activities related to effective strategies to enhance the achievement of a diverse student population have been provided. COMMENTS: YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 7 SP/I 9.4 All teachers have participated in the following staff development activities:  PET  TESA  Classroom Management  Effective Schools COMMENTS: YES NO 10.0 Parental Involvement The school provides equitable opportunities for parental involvement in the district. SP/I 10.1 All identifiable groups of parents are actively involved in school functions. COMMENTS: YES NO D 10.2 The school keeps a record of the different methods (memo, letter, phone, home visits) used to encourage parental involvement in school and in home supported educational activities. COMMENTS: YES NO D/I 10.3 Contact is made regularly with the home to communicate positive as well as negative information related to student behavior. COMMENTS: . '  YES NO D/I 10.4 Contact is made regularly with the home to communicate positive as well as negative information related to student achievement. COMMENTS: YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 8 SP 10.5 School patrons and parents are given an opportunity to actively participate in developing the local school plans. COMMENTS: ______ ______ _______ YES NO D/I 10.6 Parental involvement strategies are modified as needed to ensure communication with parents who ' are difficult to reach. COMMENTS: YES NO D/I 10.7 Meetings with small groups of parents are held at community locations such as churches, community/ recreation centers, homes, etc. COMMENTS: YES NO 11.0 Stud-en Discipline The school ensures that student disciplinary policies and practices are non-discriminatory. D 11.1 Information in the form of handbooks and/or public presentations regarding student disciplinary policies and procedures is distributed to all students and parents. COMMENTS: YES NO SP/I 11.2 Strategies are used to prevent the occurrence of a disproportionate number of suspensions, expulsions, and/or disciplinary referrals involving black males. COMMENTS: YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 9 0 11.3 Classroom instruction proceeds in an orderly manner. COMMENTS: YES NO SP/I 11.4 A mentoring program is_^ used to meet the needs of at-risk students. COMMENTS: I 11.5 Students have access to community based support programs. COMMENTS: YES NO 12.0 Building Leadership/Management SP 12.1 The school has a clear, concise, well-written statement of specific improvement goals in accordance with the incentive school plan. COMMENTS: YES NO SP 12.2 The school has appropriate strategies for attaining improvement goals. COMMENTS: YES NO D/I 12.3 Counselors are actively involved in addressing the needs of at-risk students and assisting parents, as needed, in obtaining services from outside agencies. COMMENTS: YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring for Incentive Schools Page 10 D/I 12.4 There is evidence that the guidance program provides equitable services to all groups of students. COMMENTS: __________________________________ YES NO D/0 12.5 The school has published clear statements of expectations for student conduct. COMMENTS: __________ __________ YES NO 0 12.6 The campus and building are clean and free of debris and graffiti. COMMENTS: YES NO O 12.7 Hallways are orderly. COMMENTS: YES NO O 12.8 The school office has friendly and helpful personnel. COMMENTS: ______________________________ YES NO Is there anything unusual or of interest or concern which you want to report? COMMENTS: YES NO Send completed document to: Planning, Research, and Evaluation 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR  72201  TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: T LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 September 10, 1991 Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Update on Desegregation - August Please find enclosed the update on desegregation for the month of August, of June and July. I did not prepare updates for the monthsLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Little Rock, Arkansas December 1991 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Equitable Placement by Race/Gender in School Programs , 2 2.0 Curriculum 3 3.0 School/District Initiated Honors and Awards 7 4.0 Committees 8 5.0 Extended Day Program 9 6.0 Student Achievement/Assessment 11 7.0 Special Education 13 8.0 Gifted and Talented Education 14 9.0 Staff Development 15 10.0 Parental Involvement 17 11.0 Student Discipline 18 12.0 Building Leadership/Management 19LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT The Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan requires monitoring for educational equity in all schools in the District. The monitoring is conducted by the LRSD Districtwide Biracial Committee and Planning, Research and Evaluation staff. Each team conducts one school visit each quarter using a monitoring instrument developed by the Biracial Committee, the three school districts in Pulaski County, the Arkansas Department of Education, and the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. The monitoring instrument and Standard Operating Procedures for Monitoring are provided to principals prior to the visits with instructions for these instruments to be shared with their school staffs. Visits by the Planning, Research and Evaluation staff are scheduled cooperatively with each principal. Visits by the Biracial Committee are scheduled by the Office of Desegregation. The teams report quarterly to the superintendent the progress or lack of progress in the following areas: Separation of Races in School Programs Curriculum School/District Initiated Honors/Awards Committees Extended Day Educational Opportunities Student Achievement/Assessment Special Education Gifted and Talented Education Staff Development Parental Involvement Student Discipline Building Leadership/ManagementEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 2 Each team, using race and gender as the unit of analysis, reviews a school profile which contains basic information related to current conditions in the monitored areas. The school profile information is verified through the school visit and interviews with school personnel. This report is a summary of the first quarter visits conducted between October 7 and November 20, 1991. The school reports identify conditions that were evident on the day of the visit. Many acceptable conditions were observed by the monitors during the visits. However, the intent of this 'report is to identify the degree to which each school is progressing towards the goals of desegregation. At the conclusion of each visit, a conference is held with the building principal or designee to review the findings of the team. The principal's comments from this conference are included in the reports for clarification. In addition, the Office of Desegregation requires a written response from each principal detailing a plan to eliminate any identified problems. Therefore, current conditions may be different. 1.0 EQUITABLE PLACEMENT BY RACE/GENDER IN SCHOOL PROGRAMS At each school the monitors expected to find: * Racially balanced staff which reflects appropriate percentages as established by the Court A Racial/gender balance in staff assignments, programs, content areas, and grade levelEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 3 FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members Three of the LRSD biracial teams monitoring reported a negative reaction to the item dealing with acceptable staffing range. The Mitchell biracial team indicated that there were only three male certified teachers. The Mitchell team also said that the support staff was black, except for one person (perpetrating stereotypical black roles). The Rockefeller biracial monitoring team identified a lack of males in the teaching staff at the school. The Stephens biracial monitoring team saw no black certified males, no white instructional aides, and stereotypical black non-certified staff. Response from Principal(s): None. Monitored by Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation Specialists LRSD/PRE Specialists reported that all of the incentive schools were within the acceptable staffing range. 2.0 CURRICULUM At each school the monitors expected to find:  A culturally diverse curriculum * A scoped, sequenced, multicultural, interdisciplinary and bias free curriculum * An adequacy of materials and equipment to support the curriculum  Varied teaching strategies that match the learning styles of the studentsEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 4  Current and accurate documentation of student progress  Teachers demonstrating an understanding of a multiculturally infused curriculum * Students participating in heterogeneous groups that utilize peer tutoring * Displays of bulletin boards, materials, and publications that reflect the multicultural curriculum * Use of hands-on discovery and exploration teaching strategies  Academic program enhanced by extracurricular activities FINDINGS\nMonitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Teaun Members Deficiencies in record keeping were noted by the LRSD Biracial Committee (BRC) monitors at five of the seven incentive schools. Student records were reported as not current and complete in some classrooms visited at Franklin, Garland, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens. Other deficits noted follow. Franklin (10-8-91) Some SEPs did not have dates initiated or evaluation procedures. Some ASDPs did not have strategies to address deficit skills. Garland (10-9-91) Most SEPs reviewed lacked parent signatures, instructional strategies and evaluation procedures. No instructional strategies were listed on any of the ASDPs that were reviewed. Ish (10-10-91) Some signatures were missing on some student records. Mitchell (10-24-91) Some SEPs did not include evaluation procedures and/or initiation dates. One ASDP did not have instructional strategies.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 5 Rightsell (10-6-91) In two classrooms, all of the SEPs were the same with one minor exception. Some SEPs lacked evaluation procedures and some ASDPs lacked instructional strategies. Rockefeller (11-14-91) SEPs were not found in some files. Stephens (10-28-91) Dates initiated needed to be added to SEPs at the first and third grades. Two of the six ASDPs reviewed did not have instructional strategies. The Biracial Committee monitors indicated that at Rockefeller there was no evidence that teachers had adequate materials and equipment to deliver and use the multicultural curriculum. The report stated that the multicultural guides seemed too complicated and that there was no tool to show how to use the multicultural guides. All students were not actively involved in classroom instruction at Rockefeller. Monitors observed some students'who were \"listless\" and/or inattentive. At Rightsell, the Biracial Committee monitors noted that while exhibits in the halls were very good, most classrooms did not have displays that reflected the multicultural curriculum. Monitors found that the displays of student work did not reflect varying teaching strategies. Displays were of workbooks, basals, paperwork with no hands-on or innovative strategies evident. Some classrooms did not have science resources in evidence. No classes were observed working on science. Most teachers visited had not taken their studentsEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 6 on field trips to reinforce the academic program and some had not yet planned field trips. The sixth grade teachers at Stephens did not have the district's multicultural curriculum guides. Monitors found that grades 4 through 6 had very little, if any, student work displayed. Also, teachers visited indicated a need for more science equipment, some of which had been ordered. Response from Principal(s): The Stephens principal stated that she was monitoring records and she would take care of all students' records. Monitored by Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation Specialists The Planning, Research, and Evaluation monitoring team found the following deficiencies at the incentive schools related to curriculum. In every incentive school, in some classrooms visited, student records were reported to be not current and complete. Additional findings related to teacher/student records follow. Franklin (11-4-91) Reading magazine tests had not been given in two classrooms. Mathematics tests, ASDPs, and parent/student discipline contracts were not available in some classrooms. There were no displays of student work in some classrooms visited. Garland (11-5-91) Some SEPs and ASDPs lacked parent signatures. A grade book was not available in one visited classroom. Grades were available for only one subject area in another classroom. Ish (11-6-91) Parent notifications were not available in PAL folders. Some SEPs lacked parentEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 7 signatures. Interim reports and parent/student discipline contracts were not sent home in one classroom visited. 3.0 Mitchell (11-11-91) Rightsell (11-12-91) Rockefeller (11-13-91) Stephens ((11-14-91) Reading folders were not available in one monitored classroom. signatures in one classroom. ASDPs lacked parent Some parent notifications were not signed or available in a PAL classroom. Some ASDPs and SEPs lacked parent signature. In PAL classes, some parent notifications were not signed and available. Reading magazine tests and mathematics tests had not been administered for the first nine weeks in one monitored classroom. Student/Parent discipline contracts were not available in one monitored classroom. Reading magazine tests had not been administered and recorded on reading folders in some monitored classrooms. Some ASDPs did not have parent signatures. In some classrooms visited at Franklin, there were no displays of student work reflecting varying teaching strategies. Although instruction proceeded in an orderly manner in the monitored classrooms at Garland, some students displayed disruptive behavior, therefore, they were not involved in the instruction. SCHOOL/DISTRICT INITIATED HONORS AND AWARDS At each school the monitors expected to find:  A variety of awards and honors * Written procedures and requirements governing honors and awardsEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 8  Methods for communicating requirements for receiving honors/awards to all students * A process to evaluate the honors and awards program * Plans to eliminate any gender/grade level inequities relative to distribution of honors and awards FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Teeun Members The Biracial Committee team reported that four of the seven incentive schools had no available evidence for distribution of honors or awards. Procedures for apprising students of the requirements and of information regarding various opportunities in educational programs was in place as observed by Biracial Committee team and PRE monitors. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Plannincr, Research, and Evaluation Specialists The PRE monitors indicated that all information for this area would be available after the first nine weeks for all seven schools. However, procedures for apprising students of the requirements governing honors and awards and of information regarding opportunities in educational programs were in place at each school. 4.0 COMMITTEES At each school the monitors expected to find: * Racial/gender composition of committees generally reflects the school populationEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 9 FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members Members of the LRSD Biracial Team reported that the composition of each school based committee generally reflected the staff/parent population in six of the incentive schools. Although the school based committees at Garland generally reflected the staff/parent population, there was limited parent involvement and participation. At Rockefeller, school based committees did not reflect the staff/parent population. Monitors said there were no parents on the Biracial Committee and only two parents on the Parent Advisory Committee for this school. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Planninq, Research, and Evaluation Specialists The composition of each school-based committee generally reflected the staff/parent population in each of the monitored incentive schools. 5.0 EXTENDED DAY PROGRAM At each school the monitors expected to find:  Provides parents with adequate information regarding extended day activities * Recruitment practices to promote participation of all students in extended day activities  Meets the individual needs of the students (SEPs)EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 10 FINDINGS\nMonitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members The Biracial Committee teams reported that all seven schools informed parents of the extended day activities by sending surveys, fliers, and parent-teacher conferences. Six of seven schools informed the Biracial Committee teams that the majority (3/4 - 80 percent and over) participated in extended day activities. These six schools also indicated to the Biracial Committee teams that the extended day activities were adjusted to meet the needs of all students. Only one school (Rockefeller) reported that less than one-third of the students participated in the extended day activities. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Planninq, Research, and Evaluation Specialists The PRE monitors reported that all seven schools informed parents during registration and at PTA meetings. Fliers and survey forms were also sent to parents to be signed and returned to each school. The PRE monitors reports indicated that the majority of the seven schools student population participated in extended day activities ranging from 52-71 percent (according to each schools' student population). The PRE monitors also reported that all seven schools extended day activities were related to the objectives of each SEP and adjusted to meet the needs of the students.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 11 6.0 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT/ASSESSMENT At each school the monitors expected to find:  All students' strengths and weaknesses assessed and their educational programs planned accordingly * Evidence that promotion/retention rates are monitored and analyzed to reduce disparities in achievement  Test results used for diagnostic and prescriptive purposes and reported in a manner that is clear and helpful to administrators, teachers, students, and parents * Strategies to close the disparity in test scores among identifiable groups FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Teeun Members When test results were examined, overall achievement of students did not remain stable or improve at most of the incentive schools. Two of the incentive schools, Ish and Mitchell, demonstrated improved test results for overall student achievement. Goals and strategies were developed and are being implemented at most of the incentive schools to improve student achievement. Monitors at Rightsell reported that no evidence was provided on goals and strategies to improve student achievement. Promotion/retention rates reflected the school population at five of the incentive schools. At Rockefeller, the promotion/retention rates did not reflect the school population, according to monitors. The monitoring team forEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 12 Rightsell said that data was not provided on the promotion/ retention rates. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Planninq, Research, and Evaluation Specialists Most of the incentive schools did not demonstrate stable or improved test results overall for student achievement. At Franklin, there was improvement on the Minimum Performance Test (MPT), but three grade levels had decreased scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test-Sixth Edition (MAT-6). There was an overall decrease in student achievement on the MPT and MAT-6 at Garland and Ish. Although there was an increase in student achievement scores on the MPT at Rightsell, there was an overall decrease on MAT-6 scores. Monitors at Rockefeller reported that third grade students demonstrated improved scores on the MPT, while sixth graders had decreased scores. On the MAT-6, there was an overall decrease in test scores at Rockefeller. Two of the incentive schools, Mitchell and Stephens, demonstrated improved scores overall on the MPT and MAT-6. All of the incentive schools had developed goals and were implementing strategies to improve student achievement. The retention rate reflected the school population at each of the incentive schools, except Franklin. The monitors reported that the retention rateat Franklin, 16 males and 1 female, did not reflect the school population according to gender.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 13 7.0 SPECIAL EDUCATION At each school the monitors expected to find:  Clear, well-defined referral, assessment and placement procedures  Sufficient textbooks, materials, and equipment available for all students to participate in classroom learning experiences Strategies to ensure equitable services by gender and grade level  Adequate facilities to meet the needs of the students served FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members There were no areas of concern regarding special education reported by the Biracial Committee monitors at Franklin, Garland, Ish, or Stephens. No observations were made at Mitchell, Rightsell or. Rockefeller. The special education teacher was not available at Rightsell and the teacher at Mitchell was absent on the day of the visit. Monitored by Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation Specialists The PRE monitors found no areas of concern regarding special education at Garland, Ish, Rightsell, or Stephens. The Franklin report noted that materials and equipment were not adequate to deliver the curriculum in the special education classroom. The monitors observed that the number of male students enrolled in special education at Mitchell was disproportionateEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 14 to the school enrollment. Strategies to eliminate such disproportionality were not available in the School Profile. Monitors obseirved special education facilities at Rockefeller to be adequate\nhowever, the staff reported that the facilities were not adequate for the needs of the students served. Response from Principal(s) : The Franklin principal stated that there was a new teacher in special education. There had been some concern about how pull-outs for special education would be handled since Franklin was an incentive school. He said he was working on this situation along with the Special Education Department. 8.0 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION At each school the monitors expected to find:  Students identified through referral, standardized test results, academic performance, and other criteria deemed appropriate by the school staff * A planned and organized strategy to address any problem of underrepresentation of identifiable groups in gifted and talented programs  Sufficient textbooks, materials, and equipment available to deliver the curriculum to all students in the class * Gifted and talented facilities that are comparable to other educational programs on the campus and integrated into the total school environment  Adequate facilities to meet the needs of the students sei-vedEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST QUARTER 1991-92 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 15 FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Tezun Members There is not a teacher for gifted and talented (G/T) students assigned to Ish, according to the report submitted by the LRSD Biracial Committee. The report also indicated that the principal is attempting to locate a teacher for this position. No observation of the G/T programs at either Mitchell or Rockefeller was conducted by the monitors. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Planninq, Research, and Evaluation Specialists Students in the G/T program at Ish were not serviced during the first nine weeks.because there was no teacher for G/T education. At Rockefeller, the student enrollment in G/T was disproportionate to the school population\nfemales comprised 73 percent of the students assigned to the program. Response from Principal(s): The principal at Ish reported that there was a teacher for G/T students during the first three weeks of school, and G/T services were provided to students. At Rockefeller, the principal stated that additional students have been recommended, but approval for assignment to the program must come from the G/T central office. 9.0 STAFF DEVELOPMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: * Staff development programs designed to enable staff members to fulfill the district/school mission and purposeEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 16 Staff development provided at a variety of places and times Appropriate inservice provided to enable each staff member to understand his/her role and responsibility in the implementation of the districtwide desegregation plan Documentation of staff development participation FINDINGS\nMonitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members The data from the Ish report revealed that strategies for multicultural curriculum delivery and training related to educational equity had not been provided during the first nine weeks. The report from Stephens reported that less than half of the certified teachers had taken advantage of staff development activities to enhance teaching strategies for multicultural curriculum delivery, and only three teachers had received training in educational equity. Some monitored staff members at Rockefeller indicated that their staff development plan did not provide for development to increase the achievement of a diverse student population. There were no areas of concern at the remaining schools. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members According to monitored teachers, the staff development plans demonstrated a commitment to equity by providing the appropriate and/or selected inservices. There were no areas of concern. * * *EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 17 10.0 PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: * Documentation of school-home communication and contact * Documented evidence showing how all identifiable groups of parents have been actively solicited tt When financially possible, transportation provided for parents who need the service  School functions conducted in community facilities near identifiable groups of parents  School functions scheduled to accommodate all parent groups  Provision for regularly infoirming parents regarding all aspects of their child's school performance * Opportunities to develop leadership skills among all parent groups FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Teeua Members The reports from Ish and Rockefeller showed that there was no evidence to support that parents had participated in the development of the School Improvement Plan. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Planninq, Research, and Evaluation Specialists The team from Mitchell indicated that monitored teachers expressed that actual parent involvement was extremely limited, but emphasized that all parent groups had been adequately informed.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 18 11.0 STUDENT DISCIPLINE At each school the monitors expected to find: * No disproportionality among identifiable groups of students when discipline sanctions are analyzed * Teachers receiving staff development and training to become more effective in discipline management and classroom management * Discipline program monitored, evaluated, and updated * Community based support programs  Mentoring program * Evidence that a handbook/policy clearly states expectations for student conduct and that these policies are distributed and explained FINDINGS: Monitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members At Ish, the LRSD Biracial Committee was not able to determine from a review of the School Profile if strategies are used to prevent the occurrence of a disproportionate number of suspensions, expulsions and/or disciplinary referrals involving identifiable groups. These same strategies were not included in the School Profiles of Rightsell or Rockefeller, according to the reports submitted. At Rockefeller, the Biracial Committee determined that there was no evidence that all students and parents had been given information, including the school's expectation for student conduct, in the form of handbooks and/or public presentations regarding student*disciplinary policies. The committee that monitored Rockefeller reported that there wasEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 19 no mentoring program established to meet the needs of at-risk students, nor was there evidence that students have access to community based support programs. The report did not specify if strategies are used to prevent the occurrence of a disproportionate number of suspensions, expulsions and/or disciplinary referrals involving identifiable groups. Response from Principal(s): The principal at Ish stated that the plan was in place. but he has not had a need to suspend or expel any students. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Planninq, Research, and Evaluation Specialists The parent/student contracts in the discipline handbooks were either unsigned or unavailable in some of the monitored classrooms at Rightsell, according to the monitoring report. 12.0 BUILDING LEADERSHIP/MANAGEMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: * Clear, concise and well-written improvement goals * Physical environment supports the goals of quality teaching and learning, i.e., clean buildings, no debris, orderly halls, no graffiti * Evidence that the principal monitors the curriculum * Strategies to increase participation in upper level class groups * Evidence which indicates that all students are served by the guidance program * A system to receive information from former students and patrons regarding the quality/needs of the total program * A safe and secure campus for all students, LRSD employees, and visitorsEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 20 FINDINGS\nMonitored by Little Rock School District/Biracial Team Members The LRSD biracial monitoring teams from Garland and Rockefeller reported no written, clear, concise statements of specific improvement goals. The LRSD biracial team reported that the Garland Counselor was on an extended leave with no replacement. The biracial team from Stephens School said that the office media center needed new carpeting. There were loose wires hanging inside and outside the Stephens building. Stephens also had a broken fence along the playground area. The biracial monitoring team from Rightsell found that the office staff rather than being friendly and helpful. seemed \"on edge.\" The biracial team from Rockefeller found no form for use in monitoring the curriculum or any other evidence that curriculum monitoring occurred. The Ish, Rightsell, and Rockefeller biracial monitoring committees could find no evidence that strategies were developed to increase the number of minority students in upper level classes. The Rightsell and Rockefeller biracial teams found some problems with security at the schools. At Rockefeller, the visitors were able to walk around without name tags. At Rightsell, a student opened the outside door to let the monitor (stranger) into the school.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONI'^ORING 1991-92 FIRST QUARTER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SUMMARY REPORT Page 21 Response from Principal(s): The Ish principal stated that the item dealing with strategies to increase the number of minority students enrolled in upper level courses/class groups did not apply to the elementary level. Monitored by Little Rock School District/Planninq, Research, and Evaluation Specialists A few security problems were found at some of these schools by the LRSD/PRE program monitoring team. At Mitchell School, all the visited classroom doors were unlocked. At Rightsell, one outside double door was found unlocked. This was a rear entrance double door between the library and the annex classroom for four year olds. At Rockefeller, three outside doors were unlocked. At Stephens School, two outside entrance doors were unlocked. Also the back door to the girls' restroom was open. Some graffiti was observed on the wall of a portable building at Stephens. Response from Principal(s): The Rockefeller principal said that the outside doors near the cafeteria, were unlocked for a short time during lunch when students go outdoors and back inside with adult supervision. The Stephens principal said that she would have the graffiti removed. She also said that she monitors the building throughout the school day to keep the doors locked. Some students and staff continued to leave doors open. The school staff was working to correct the problem.TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72202 October 22 1991 Franklin Davis, Principal, Franklin School James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services \"^fony Wood, Deputy Superintendent, LRSD First Monitoring Visits - Concerns Your school was monitored by a team from the Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee on October 8, 1991. P--- respond to the concernCs) listed below by Friday, November 1, 1991. Please be specific as to how and when the concern(s) Your response(s) should be Please listed below will be addressed, forwarded to my office. 2.2 Some of the SEP's did not have dates initiated, evaluation procedures, and/or parent signatures. Some of the ASDP's did not have instructional strategies to address deficit areas. cc: Larry Robertson Arma Hart l-'FRANKLIN INCENTIVE SCHOOL 1701 South Harrison TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Little Rock, AR 72204 December 13, 1991 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Franklin Davis, Principal, Franklin School First Monitoring Visit - Concerns A copy of the attached memo was sent to all teachers whose SEPs were found to have areas of deficit. I personally reviewed each teachers SEPs and I have a copy of what was given to each teacher in his/her file.TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Robert Brown, Principal, Garland Incentive School James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent, LRSD First Monitoring Visits - Concerns Your school was monitored by a team from the Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee on October 9, 1991. Please respond to the concern(s) listed below by November 1, Please be specific as to how and when the concern(s) listed below Your responsefs) should be forwarded to my 1991. will be addressed, office. 2.1 Some teachers would like to have an additional Black History course. 2.2 Most SEP'S did Interim reports appeared to be in order, not have parent signatures or dates of initiation^ most SEP'S did not have evaluation_procedures. Th were no instructional strategies listed on any of the Also, There 12.1 cc: ASDPs that were reviewed. 2.4.1 3.2 4.1 5.1 10.1 10.4 10.6 Media center needs more bulletin board space. Library needs remodeling. Did not see evidence of requirements in profile. Limited parent involvement and participation. Students must remain during the full extended day. Limited parent involvement. Not reflected in profile. Not at this time. However, in discussion with Not in profile. . _ principal, he has very definite goals for this school. Larry Robertson Arma HartGarland 3615 W. 25th Little Rock. AR 72204 Incentive Mr. Robert L. Brown. Jr.. Principal ' Phone: {501)671-6275 'Simply Tran^ormational'' 4% J TO: December 5, 1991 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services FROM:(A^^obert L. Brown, Jr., Principal, Garland Incentive School SUB J: Response to First Monitoring Visit Concerns The following responses reflect an update of what has occurred since the Biracial Advisory Committee's monitoring visit. 2.1 An attempt was made to assess staff support for the purchase of an African American Video Encyclopedia Program. The staff vote produced only three (3) responses in favor of purchasing the program. The staff feels that the Little Rock School District does not approve of, or support those The programs recommended by this administrator\ntherefore they express discomfort in supporting that which they feel that the District does not support. A few books have been ordered that will provide teachers with access to some information that has been suppressed concerning the African/African American struggles. 2.2 SEP'S were not completed or properly initiated and still reflect serious deficits to this date. Teachers have been informed of their requirements to meet the obligations stated in the Desegregation Plan. Providing an adequate assessment of SEP'S by this administrator is hampered by a lack of inservice time needed to fully understand the essential components of a proper SEP. Some ASDP's contained instructional strategies from the previous year, but strategies developed by the current teachers had not been done, The teachers have been made aware of the concerns.  Garland 3613 W. 38th LttOeRock, AR 73304 Bobcats Incentive Mr. Robert L. Brown, Jr. Principal Phone\n(SOI) 671-6373 3.2 4.1 5.1 10.1 10.4 10.5 School The needs of the Library are correct. The facility is too small to conduct a full size staff meeting with an appropriate setting. The individual in charge of awards had not communicated the requirements to the students. and the situation is being corrected. The concern has been shared There is limited parent involvement and participation. Parent involvement has been significant at three events. PTA Meetings are held each month, but the attendance has been low. Students were required to remain during the full extended day program. This requirement has been eased since it doesn't meet the approval of the team. Equitable opportunities exist for parents to be involved in school activities, but few parents choose to become involved. Some of the school patrons reflected on the profile are also employed in various capacities within the school. Two meetings with community church. p a. J. till L o have been held at a local Documentation and dates are available. 12.1 Although the school's plan does not reflect specific improvements in line with the Incentive School plan, recommendations for programs that would address several However, aspects of educational equity has been made by this administration. those recommendations have not been approved by Central Office Administration. cc: Larry Robertson Arma Hart Tony Wood LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 Sherman Street TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 November 11, 1991 Stan Strauss, Principal, Ish School James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent, LRSD First Monitoring Visit - Concerns Your school was monitored by a team from the Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee on October 10, 1991. Please respond to the concern(s) listed below by Friday, November 29, 1991. Please be specific as to how and when the concern(s) listed below will be addressed, forwarded to my office. Your response!s) should be 3.2 No evidence of the procedures found in the school profile. 3.4 3.5 9.1 9.2 No evidence is offered in the school profile showing that honors and awards are evaluated regularly for equity and to determine if new awards are necessary to meet student needs. Cannot be determined from the school profile. The staff development program participation level of certified staff does not demonstrate commitment to district desegregation education plan. A very few of total certified staff have completed multicultural curriculum which is designed to help staff implement the districtwide desegregation plan.Ish School First Monitoring Visit-Concerns Page -2- 10.4 After reviewing school plan, was not able to see evidence of parent participation in developing local school plan. 10.6 Records at school did not reflect that parents participated in school meetings at local churches, community or recreation centers, etc.ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR TO: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Comnunity Services FROM:^Stan Strauss, Principal DATE: December 2, 199 1 RE\nFirst Monitoring Visit - Concerns 3.2 The Parent/Student Handbook is being revised to include honor requirements. At the first honors program, requirements for academic honor roll, academic achievement award, behavior honor roll, and perfect attendance award were explained verbally to all students. 3.4 Honor awards are checked each nine weeks by the principal and are recorded in the School Profile. the first nine weeks was October 31. The monitoring team came October 10. The end of All students, those working at or above grade level and those working below grade level have the opportunity to achieve at least one of the awards mentioned in 3.2. In addition to the school awards, individual classroom teachers have been instructed to present classroom awards in order to provide a greater opportunity for a student to be presented with an award. 3.5 Honor awards are recorded in the School Profile each nine weeks. The monitoring team visited October 10. was October 31. The end of the first nine weeks 9.1 All certified staff participate in two building level staff development meetings. One meeting is addressed to the entire staff and focuses on an area of instruction based on teachers' individual improvement plans. The second meeting focuses on instruction and methodology, but is directed at primary teachers one time and Intermediate teachers another time, second meetings also discuss current concerns and issues dealing with curriculum and instruction. These 9.2 All certified staff members have participated in District meetings concerning content and delivery of the multi-cultural curriculum guides. 10.4 The School Improvement Plan for Ish was written by the staff and the previous administration. When the new administration took office, the plan was reviewed and revised by the principal and the staff. It was important for the staff and administration to understand each other and the plan before parents were brought in to help write. Parents will be included on any future revisions and the writing of the plan for next year. 10.6 At this time no meetings have been held at community locations outside the school.TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 October 31, 1991 Donita Hudspeth, Principal, Mitchell School James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Hzy Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services si Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent, LRSD First Monitoring Visit -Concerns Your school was monitored by a team from the Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee on October 24, 1991. respond to the concern(s) listed.below by Friday, November 15, 1991. \" Please Please be specific as to how and when the concern(s) listed below will be addressed, forwarded to my office. Your response(s) should be 1.1 Support staff is black except for one person (perpetuating stereotypical .black roles). 2.2 Most of the SEP'S were in excellent shape. There were a few cases, however, where SEP's did not include evaluation procedures and/or initiation dates. the ASDP' did not have instructional strategies. One of cc: Arma Hart Larry RobertsonLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Mitchell Elementary School 2410 \u0026amp; Battery Street Phone (501) 375-6931 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 1.1 2.2 November 18, 1991 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegration MUoj,pixbring and Community Services a Hudspeth, Principal, Mitchell School First Monitoring Visit - Concerns The number of black support staff, to be sure represents an imbalance. Since I was already cognizant of this situation, I attempted to recruit white applicants for the additional instructional aides position. I did recruit two (2) white appliants, but was only able to recommend one for employment. Other positions/personnel have been in place for some time. Many staff members assume initiation dates for strategies written are the beginning of school. ~ ' and/or initiation dates will be added. Evaluation procedures Two students' records who now have ASDP's did not arrive until early October. Their plans were completed in their entirety by Mitchell School. Those plans now have Instructional strategies. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 October 29, 1991 TO: FROM: Bobbie Goodwin, Principal, Rightsell School James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services \"THROUGH: Ti, ?ony Wood, Deputy Superintendent, LRSD SUBJECT: First Monitoring Visit - Concerns Your school was monitored by a team from the Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee on October 15, 1991. Please respond to the concern(s) listed below by November 11, 1991. Please be specific as to how and when the concern(s) listed below will be addressed, office. Your response(s) should be forwarded to my 2.2 Most of the SEP'S were in excellent shape. In two of the classrooms reviewed, however, all of the SEP's were the same (one minor exception), tain evaluation procedures. have instructional strategies. Some SEP'S did not con- A couple of ASDP's did not 2.4.1 Several classrooms had excellent evidence. Most 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.5 3.3 6.2 6.3 did not. Hall exhibits were very All classrooms did not reflect. good. All workbooks, basal, paperwork (all books). No hands-on or innovative strategies evident. Some classrooms didn't even have science resources in evidence, science. No classes observed working on Not in school profile. No evidence provided. Not provided.Incentive Schools Monitoring page 2 10.5 The principal did not provide evidence of outreach to parents in this area. 10.6 Principal said no. 11.2 Not available in school profile. 12.3 Not available. 12.6 Seemed on edge. Didnt bend over to help. I 12.Q *Not in school profile. 12.10 Student opened outside door to let stranger in. classrooms unlocked. Several ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS RELATIVE TO THE MONITORING VISIT: Appalling lack of emohasxa. evidenced in test ?cores^ plaved showed lack of studentfdtv Not enough writing practices. on science and'social studies. Examples of writing skills dxsjt with the language. Look temporary. not ^Trailers lack adequate bulletin boarcjs^ ,------- conducive to learning... Ghildten bflng away from ina\nq school not good.. cc: Larry Robertson Arma HartLI KBBBBI ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Rightsell Elementary School TO: 911 West 19\" Street Phone 324-2430 November 11, 1991 FROM: RE: 2.2 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Mr. James Jennings - Associate Superintendent Mrs. Bobbie H. Goodwin, Principal First Monitoring Visit Concerns Concerns are being shared with staff. students, with a few exceptions, are the same. Usually, the needs of Primary I Teachers have been instruct-ed to list instructional strategies, if needed on ASDPs. 2.4.1 All teachers have been requested to show evidence that the multi-cultural curand 2.4.2 riculum is being implemented by bulletin boards or other displays in the classroom. 2.4.3 Concern is being shared with staff. display hands-on-materials used, and/or Language Arts. Staff has been encouraged to use and The observation occurred during Reading 2.5 One classroom at each level (3-6) is receiving materials and supplies for a science lab. Science classes are scheduled after lunch. 3.3 Extended Educational Programs are listed in the school profile. Students and parents are apprised of this information through oral and written communication from the staff. 6.2 Our school improvement plan is in the folder with the School Profile. Goals and strategies are listed to improve -student achievement using the measures listed. 6.3 Students retained are listed by grade, race, and sex in the School Profile. 10.5 I shared with the team that every effort is made to ensure communication with all parents. Our staff utilizes written correspondence, telephone calls, home visits, early arrivals and late departures to accomodate parents. 10.6 The team was made aware of meetings coordinated last year by the Incentive Schools Parent Coordinator. We also shared with them that surveys were being made by our Incentive School Services Coordinator and meetings/workshops would be planned and implemented this school year. I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas October 31, 1991 TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: 72202 Ann Mangan, Principal, Rockefeller James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent, LRSp First Monitoring Visit - Concerns Your school was monitored by a team from the Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee on October 14, 1991. Please respond to the concern(s) listed below by Tuesday, November 12, 1991. Please be specific as to how and when the concern(s) listed below will be addressed, warded to my office. Your response!s) should be for- 1.1 The student profile reflects that there is a lack of African males. Only staff Also, European American males. American male. custodian (1) European male (1) African 2.1 There is no tool to show how multicultural guide is used. 2.2 No SEP' found in some files. Some students seemed ft 1istless ff and/or inattentive. All students should participate in class or be made to participate. 2.4.1 But doesn't reflect student population. Should be more reflective of African American community. 2.4.2 Yes, hut. sliould be more reflective of the student population. 2.3Rockefeller Page -2- Concerns 3.1 No, program needs to be started. 3.3 No evidence. 3.4 No evidence. 3.5 No evidence. 4.1 No parents on biracial committee. parental participation. There is a lack of No evidence of involvement. 5.1 No evidence, one flier. 5.2 No, less than one-third. 9.3 Plan doesn't address diversity issue. 10.1 No evidence of staff and parent interaction. 10.5 No evidence. 10.6 No evidence. 11.1 No evidence. 11.4 Working on it, right now only African American woman. 11.5 No evidence. 12.1 No evidence. ( 12.7 No form or evidence that curriculum monitoring occurs. 12.8 No evidence. I cc: Arma Hart Larry RobertsonTO: FROM: JAMES JENNINGS, ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT FOR DESEGREGATION MONITORING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ANNE MANGAN P^RINCIPAL, ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL RE: RESPONSE TO FIRST MONITORING CONCERNS AS REPORTED BY THE DISTRICT BIRACIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE/ OCTOBER 14,1991 VISIT DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1991 The first visit of the Bi-Racial Monitoring Team was held on October 14, 1991. A copy of the responses made by the team was delivered to my off ice on Friday, November 15, 1991. An exit conference was held with me at the end of the visit and only a few serious concerns were reported to me at that time. The only two things that I felt would be addressed was the lack of male staff members and the fact that a mentoring program had not been fully implemented at that time. To have twenty-three concerns and twelve of those responses listed with n no evidence tl was a shock and If the team assigned to monitor Rockefeller totally beyond reason. School saw no evidence, I would have certainly expected them to ask for it from a staff member or the administration. During the exit conference, the team appeared to be rushed and in a hurry to leave. I feel that if there had been that many serious concerns - and only a few were mentioned to me - they should have been made known to me at that time. documentation was I keep accurate and up-to-date records and all available for inspection. I have notebooks. files, and documentation in my office or with the teachers in every area being monitored. clarify anything questionable. If any part was unclear, I was available to In response to the concerns: 1.1 There are three African American males - custodians (3) There is one African American male instructional aide (1) There is one European American male - certified teacher (1) I will continue to search for additional males to add to the staff and interview any who have applied for positions with LRSD. 2.1 The tool used to determine if the multicultural guide is being used by the teachers is to monitor the lesson plan book. The teacher plans instruction with the textbook and the multicultural materials as a guide. Plans are monitored by the administration. The comment on the report that the multicultural guide appearing to be too complicated should not be a negative response about the program at Rockefeller but rather a comment made to those that have supplied the guide to all teachers in the district and directed all teachers to use it on a regular basis. We also should not be held responsible for the fact that the textbooks do not reflect enough about African Americans. 2.2 ' their This is an absolutely false statement. All teachers have in possession the SEPS prepared for each student and I personally have copies of those SEPs in my office.2.3 If some students seemed. \"listless  or inattenti ve, have been being referred an underlying reason. Not knowing which children there may to in this report, i t is very di f f icult to we re say. There are some children who are allowed to stay up until all hours of the night and we sometimes have to do everything possible to keep them awake. There are teachers do everything keep students on tasks. other extenuating circumstances but in their power to stimulate interest and 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 The bulletin boards and the school and classroom I change as the focus of study changes. They do reflect the multicultural curriculum as well as all aspects of the curriculum being studied -art work from all cultures, handwriting, language arts, 3.1 science, social studies, math, etc. All children who were good citizens during the month of September were honored with a special sticker and a popcycle. same reward was given at the end of October. There is an (( The Honors Reception (t at the end of each nine week period. The first of these receptions was held on Friday, November 15, 1991. Parents of students making either all As or the A/B honor roll were invited to the reception and approximately 50 parents attended. making straight As were awarded a School fl If Students I am a STAR at Rockefeller tee shirt, a bumper sticker and a coupon for a kids meal at a local restaurant. The A/B Honor students were given a bumper sticker and a coupon for the Jr. Frosty at Wendys. A large sheet cake, cookies, and punch was served to those attending. The students with perfect attendance for the first nine weeks received a coupon from McDonalds. Parents and students had been made aware of the awards that would be provided at the beginning of the year during meetings with the students and also explained fully at Parents Night and P.T.A. 3.3 I believe. if one were to check. Rockefeller was the only incentive school to provide an information sheet for parents during registration for the past two years. It fully outlined the educational opportunities that would be provided during extended day. Then, a survey was developed, listing possible selections, to determine interest in the various offerings. After this survey was completed, the programs most frequently chosen were offered during the extended day. 3.4 and 3.5 At the time of the monitoring visit. the list of recipients for honors and awards had not even been turned in. As soon as they were submitted to the office, an evaluation for equity most definitely was conducted. No new awards are necessary since the numbers of those awarded were reflective of the student population. 4.1 There is no school bi-racial committee set Rather, there are two parents on the Incentive up this year. Committee as directed by the district. It is School Advisory beyond me how anyone could report that there is a lack of parental participation when we have a very active P.T.A. and the executive board meetsregulnrly once a month. There is n listing of volunteers on in the office. There was a approximately 275 parents in attendance. highly successful Parent Night file with We had an Early Childhood 50 parents attended the Parent Night that was very well attended. I certainly do not think that this merits awards reception. a comment of \"No evidence of involvement. tf 5.1 If a member of the monitoring team had asked for evidence of information sent home to parents about the extended day activities, they would have seen that we began giving them information during registration and continued to keep them informed up until time of implementation. The information included offerings, hours, registration for the number of days they wanted their children to attend, bus schedules, procedure for registration for CARE if they needed to stay beyond the ending time for extended day, etc. There IS more than enough evidence to substantiate this statement. 5.2 There are approximately 280 students attending Rockefeller in the f irst through sixth grades. These are the only grades attending extended day activities. 227 students are registered for extended day. This is 81% of the school population-not one-third. 9.3 I think that a few of the following staff development inservices might be considered activities that would address effective strategies that would enhance the achievement of a diverse : Students, student population: Self-Esteem, Manipulatives, Behavior Classroom Management. 10.1 Whole Learning group instruction, and Discipline, Styles At Risk Inventory, Stress Reduction, Math and Parents of all identifiable groups are involved in any and all school activities invited to  P.T.A., resource speakers in the classrooms. parent volunteers. become scouts, attend meetings, go on field trips, etc. There is no discrimination when providing equitable opportunities for parent involvement. 10.5 At last count, over 35 home visits had been made by various staff members. basis about student conduct, academic achievement notices. Teachers send home notices to parents on a weekly Several teachers send home weekly Teachers arrange their schedules to be able to meet parents at a time that is convenient for them even if it is well beyond the teachers regular working hours. 10.6 No meetings have been held up to the present date at a local church or recreation center. However, I have made contact with Rev. Banks at the Metropolitan Church which is in close proximity to Rockefeller School and asked about the possibility of meeting in his church in the near future. He was very receptive and helpful. It is my understanding that Mrs. Catherine Gill will be arranging to have some of our future incentive parent meetings at community locations, also.11.1 The Rockefeller School Handbook was sent to every family and provided pertinent information relative to our school. Also, the new Students Rights and Responsibility Handbook was taught and Al so , Students distributed to every student attending Rockefeller. Every family was provided a copy and they had to sign a page stating that they Those forms had read the policies and had received the booklet. are available and on record at the school. 11.4 We do have several mentors presently working in our building. Also, a list of eleven African American males were submitted to Mrs. Catherine Gill, Incentive School Coordinator, who is working with VIPS to establish a mentoring program in each incentive school. There will be a group of Central High students coming to Rockefeller once a week to be mentors to some of our students. Mrs. Mary Mross comes once a week to work with several students. A grandparent, Mrs. Ora Bunch, is a retired teacher who volunteers in our school. 11.5 Students have had the opportunity to go to the Arkansas Arts Center, Museum of Science and History, paten, the airport, the UALR planetarium, the community programs. A program sponsored by Georgia Pacific, \"Tree Wishes\", will be provided for the 5th and 6th grade students on Monday, The 5th and 6th grade students from Ish have the pumpkin patch. the planetarium. zoo, and other program Pacific, November 18, 1991. been invited to join us for this presentation. Scout troops were taken to the State Capitol for an investiture ceremony one Saturday. The Mobile Classroom Dairy was brought to the school and all children were given the opportunity to participate in a planned program/presentation. These are just a community that have been made available for Rockefeller few of the support programs students. 12.1 for Please refer to the Rockefeller Incentive School Annual Plan the clear and concise goals, strategies, evaluation procedures for the 1991-92 school year, very clearly coincide with the desegregation plan. time lines. and The plans made 12.7 The principal and vice principal monitor teachers' lesson plans on a regular basis and make classroom visits daily to monitor the curriculum being presented. Inservice meetings with supervisors teachers. conducted. in the different curriculum areas are provided to the So far, an inservice for science teachers has been meeting. teachers The Reading Supervisors has come for an inservice The teachers in Kindergarten, 1st, 2nd and Social Studies in 3rd, 4th, 5 th, afternoon, November 18, 1991. and 6th grades will meet on Monday 12.8 minority at We have no upper level Rockefeller courses. Incentive White students are School. There are in the parent recruiters hired by the district who bring parents and students to visit the school and when impossible because of a prior they come, unless it 1 s commitment, the principal. totally vice principal or another staff member takes time to accompany the visitors and encourage the parents to enroll their students.In conclusion, I would like to voice my concern about several other comments made on this monitoring report,: 2.5 More science equipment than could ever be hoped for has been regular purchased for Rockefeller School and is being used on a Each Science teacher on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and Sth grade basis. levels have their own supplies and materials that allow students hands-on opportunities. kinds of hands-on materials for math: In addition, we have in bur building all base ten blocks, geoboards. Cuisinaire rods. etc. method of extending/enhancing the concepts. The computer definitely is not the only learning of science and math 2.6 All children experience field trip opportunities. children are involved in a club if they attend extended day All on Wednesdays since that is the day designated in the desegregation plan as the day for clubs. 11.2 Suspensions are based on the rules set out specifically in the Rights and Responsibility Handbook. In reference to the two students who had been in a fight one white and one black the black student had been in other fights as documented in the office disciplinary book and it was the for the white As stated in the Rights and Responsibility Handbook, first offense student. on the first offense, the student has a conference with the principal. On the second offense, the student is suspended for 3-5 days. In this case. as in all other cases, I conferenced with the student and warned that further offenses would result in suspension. I was in total compliance with the directives of the LRSD guidelines. I follow the rules established by the district when administering all consequences for offenses. Other comments written on the monitoring report: \"?Gangs, why do teachers need staff development for gangs. (Elementary School). Why? students Teachers need inservice on gangs because we have in our school who are in gangs. because our school IS located within a few blocks of the home-based 11 21st Street Posse\", and because our neighborhood children are influenced daily by gang members and being tempted by them often. We, as a staff, must be alert to the signs and behavior to look for so we can identify existing or potential problems. 11 All positions of leadership at Rockefeller are basically white f emales. At last count, there were two administrators at Rockefeller. The principal, Anne Mangan, is white and the vice principal, Lillie Carter, is black. That is a 50/50 ratio. We have a very good working relationship and share administrative duties quite well.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 Sherman Street TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 November 11, 1991 Lonnie Dean, Principal, Stephens School James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent, LRSD First Monitoring Visit - Concerns Your school was monitored by a team from the Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee on October 28, 1991. Please respond to the concern(s) listed below by Friday, November 29, 1991. Please be specific as to how and when the concern(s) listed below will be addressed, forwarded to my office. Your response(s) should be 1.1 2.1 No black certified males, no white instructional aides, support staff-typical black roles. Sixth grade teachers do not have the districts multicultural curriculum guides. 2.2 Most of the SEP'S and ASD\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_860","title":"Court filings: District Court, joint objections, observations, and inquiries of Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to interim budget request of Office of Metropolitan Supervisor; District Court, response (of Little Rock School District (LRSD)) to preliminary report of Metropolitan Supervisor's office; 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":["1990-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School districts","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, joint objections, observations, and inquiries of Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to interim budget request of Office of Metropolitan Supervisor; District Court, response (of Little Rock School District (LRSD)) to preliminary report of Metropolitan Supervisor's office; 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/860"],"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\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_158","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), racial count","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1990-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), racial count"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/158"],"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 (: (?_,. 0 . 7 _\":l,-, -./ LITTLER OCKS CHOOOL ISTRICT 810 \\/EST MARKHASTMR ~U LITTLI: ROCK, AR~ANSAS OCTOBE1R ENROLLMEtnNMT P~DIS0N 1QAQ-Q0/1Q~0-91 WHITE Rl.ti.\u0026lt;:K 0THl:R TnTAL %RLACK SF.NIORH IGH: 10/2/89 ?.461 V/\n4 77 t:\n802 'i6 1 0/1 /90 2201 1174 90 54/\n'i 58 ]Nr,qr:ASl:(nECR~ASE) {?.60) {90) 13 D37) % (10.1\n%) {2.8%) 16.9% (5.8%) ,lllN! OR HTG H: 10/2/89 1951 3917 90 5978 ljfj 10,1 /9() 1878 40?.5 fl 1 i:\n91v1 Fi 7 INCREASE(OECREASE(n) ) RA ( g) Fi % (1. 7o/,) ?. . ?.% ( 1 0%) . 1 % ELEMENTARY: 10/?./139 ~-579 9489 1?7 1.1.1, 95 f,,7 1( )/1 /90 1174n 91\\1 5 1f i 1 1~,:116 '~6 JNCREASE(nf:1.REASE) 161 { 54) lit 141 % ,, 1. So/, (. 6%) ?.S. 7% 1% I) J STR.r r .T TnTA L: 10/?/89 8991 16,f\nQ() ?.Q4 25,975 611 10/1/90 8819 16,fj14 1V ?5,78S ljil. TN1.R~ASE(l)f:\u0026lt;:Rl:AS(F 1.)7 2 ) ( Sfi) 38 ( 19n l % ( 1. 9%) ( .1%) 1?.Q% (. 7%) I( 1 M'1J:Qr,ARFN: 1rJ/?/R9 fi?.9 Pfi.1. 1 lj 19()\u0026lt;) f'ifj 10/1 /9() 68? 1?,nn 22 190ll fi 3 INCREASE{nECREASE) 51 (G4) 6 ( 5) % 8. I\\% {s.n1,J 17.5% {.2fi%) SUMMAORYF OCTOBl:1R , 1990 rnqOI_LMF]JT GRAf1E WHITE BLACK OTHER* TOTAL %BLACK K 68? 1200 2?. 1904 63% 7?.7 1461 32 2220 56% 2 667 1285 20 1972 6S% 3 656 1 ?.82 ?. ?. 1960 65% 4 705 1411 26 214?. 66% 5 6n7 1379 1 S 2061 67% 6 596 1310 24 1930 68% IJNGR 40 107 0 147 70% TOTALE LEM. 4 74() 9435 161 14,336 66% 7 611 1391 21 20n 69% 8 637 1367 ?.4 2028 67% 9 599 1203 35 1837 63% IINGR :l 1 64 96 67% TOT. JR HIGH 1878 4-025 81 5984 67% 10 708 113 7 34 1879 61% 11 745 1024 31 18()() 57% 12 734 994 ?.5 1753 57% lJNGR 14 19 0 33 58% TOT. SR HIGH 2?01 3174 90 5465 58~{ TOTAL: 8819 16,634 33?. ?.S,785 6S% SPl:C SCHOOLS 49 ?. ?. 0 71 31% DIST TOTALS 8868 16,656 33?. ?.'i,856 64% *SUMMAORFY S TUnENTUS STrn !N \"OTHl:R\"C ATEGOP.Y: SPANISH - 91 ASIAN/PACIFICIS LANf1ER- 215 ESKIMO/AMERICIANND IAN - 24 OTHER 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER ENROLLMENT SURVEY Oct 1, 1990 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK CENTRAL UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 10 202 320 13 535 59.81% 11 180 292 9 481 60.71% 12 235 316 13 564 56.03% SUBTOTAL 617 928 35 1580 58.73% KIND. 0 49 0 49 100.00% TOTAL 617 977 35 1629 59.98% FAIR UNGRADED 8 12 0 20 60.00% 10 104 192 3 299 64.21% 11 134 170 4 308 55.19% 12 107 130 2 239 54.39% SUBTOTAL 353 504 9 866 58.20% KIND. 2 11 0 13 84.62% TOTAL 355 515 9 879 58.59% HALL UNGRADED 6 7 0 13 53.85% 10 150 236 7 393 60.05% 11 185 208 6 399 52.13% 12 161 243 3 407 59.71% SUBTOTAL 502 694 16 1212 57.26% KIND. 10 9 0 19 47.37% TOTAL 512 703 16 1231 57.11% MCCLELLAN UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 10 132 230 7 369 62.33% 11 127 214 2 343 62.39% 12 120 169 2 291 58.08% SUBTOTAL 379 613 11 1003 61.12% KIND. 3 17 0 20 85.00% TOTAL 382 630 11 1023 61. 58% PARKVIEW UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 10 120 159 4 283 56.18% 11 119 140 10 269 52.04% 12 111 136 5 252 53.97% SUBTOTAL 350 435 19 804 54.10% KIND. 0 12 0 12 100.00% TOTAL 350 447 19 816 54.78% Page - 1 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK CLOVERDALE UNGRADED 14 40 1 55 72.73% 7 59 180 1 240 75.00% 8 78 168 2 248 67.74% 9 73 147 1 221 66.52% TOTAL 224 535 5 764 70.03% DUNBAR UNGRADED 7 125 159 3 287 55.40% 8 54 143 0 197 72.59% 9 57 121 1 179 67.60% TOTAL 236 423 4 663 63.80% FOREST HEIGHTS UNGRADED 7 8 0 15 53.33% 7 62 156 7 225 69.33% 8 71 188 3 262 71. 76% 9 84 178 8 270 65.93% TOTAL 224 530 18 772 68.65% HENDERSON UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 7 55 240 5 300 80.00% 8 67 218 6 291 74.91% 9 89 214 8 311 68.81% TOTAL 211 672 19 902 74.50% MABELVALE UNGRADED 10 16 0 26 61.54% 7 63 141 0 204 69.12% 8 74 149 1 224 66.52% 9 67 98 1 166 59.04% TOTAL 214 404 2 620 65.16% MANN UNGRADED 7 107 195 4 306 63.73% 8 135 167 5 307 54.40% 9 114 153 6 273 56.04% TOTAL 356 515 15 886 58.13% PULASKI HEIGHTS UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 7 80 153 1 234 65.38% 8 104 148 2 254 58.27% 9 78 153 3 234 65.38% TOTAL 262 454 6 722 62.88% Page - 2 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SOUTHWEST UNGRADED 0 0 0 0.00% 7 60 167 0 227 73.57% 8 54 186 5 245 75.92% 9 37 139 7 183 75.96% TOTAL 151 492 12 655 75.11% BADGETT UNGRADED 1 3 0 4 75.00% 1 6 18 0 24 75.00% 2 4 27 0 31 87.10% 3 8 32 0 40 80.00% 4 10 39 0 49 79.59% 5 11 17 0 28 60.71% 6 5 21 0 26 80.77% SUBTOTAL 45 157 0 202 77.72% KIND. 11 9 0 20 45.00% TOTAL 56 166 0 222 74.77% BALE UNGRADED 3 4 0 7 57.14% 1 10 50 0 60 83.33% 2 10 38 0 48 79.17% 3 7 49 1 57 85.96% 4 10 46 4 60 76.67% 5 14 41 0 55 74.55% 6 4 43 1 48 89.58% SUBTOTAL 58 271 6 335 80.90% KIND. 8 31 1 40 77.50% TOTAL 66 302 7 375 80.53% BASELINE UNGRADED 1 13 50 1 64 78.13% 2 14 47 2 63 74.60% 3 10 40 2 52 76.92% 4 7 39 0 46 84.78% 5 14 30 0 44 68.18% 6 14 28 0 42 66.67% SUBTOTAL 72 234 5 311 75.24% KIND. 19 38 2 59 64.41% TOTAL 91 272 7 370 73.51% Page - 3 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK BOOKER UNGRADED 1 42 41 1 84 48.81% 2 33 50  4 87 57.47% 3 34 51 0 85 60.00% 4 40 51 2 93 54.84% 5 47 53 0 100 53.00% 6 34 56 0 90 62.22% SUBTOTAL 230 302 7 539 56.03% KIND. 30 44 1 75 58.67% TOTAL 260 346 8 614 56.35% BRADY UNGRADED 2 3 0 5 60.00% 1 19 52 l 72 72.22% 2 17 39 0 56 69.64% 3 18 48 1 67 71.64% 4 19 55 1 75 73.33% 5 19 52 0 7,1 73.24% 6 6 44 1 51 86.27% SUBTOTAL 100 293 4 397 73.80% KIND. 21 37 l 59 62.71% TOTAL 121 330 5 456 72.37% CARVER UNGRADED 1 31 37 1 69 53.62% 2 41 46 2 89 51. 69% 3 42 49 0 91 53.85% 4 45 53 1 99 53.54% 5 41 54 2 97 55.67% 6 44 53 2 99 53.54% SUBTOTAL 244 292 8 544 53.68% KIND. 23 35 1 59 59.32% TOTAL 267 327 9 603 54.23% CHICOT UNGRADED 11 8 0 19 42 .11% 1 31 70 1 102 68.63% 2 27 48 0 75 64.00% 3 19 43 0 62 69.35% 4 25 46 0 71 64.79% 5 21 46 1 68 67.65% 6 19 49 0 68 72.06% SUBTOTAL 153 310 2 465 66.67% KIND. 27 52 0 79 65.82% TOTAL 180 362 2 544 66.54% Page - 4 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK CLOVERDALE UNGRADED 1 15 35 0 50 70.00% 2 12 46 0 58 79.31% 3 19 41 0 60 68.33% 4 17 46 0 63 73.02% 5 11 52 1 64 81.25% 6 14 41 0 55 74.55% SUBTOTAL 88 261 1 350 74.57% KIND. 10 28 1 39 71.79% TOTAL 98 289 2 389 74.29% DODD UNGRADED 3 4 0 7 57.14% 1 22 21 1 44 47.73% 2 17 28 0 45 62.22% 3 15 27 0 42 64.29% 4 10 29 0 39 74.36% 5 28 25 1 54 46.30% 6 19 40 1 60 66.67% SUBTOTAL 114 174 3 291 i'll 59 .?Cl% KIND. 20 20 0 40 50.00% 134 194 3 331 58.61% FAIR PARK UNGRADED 1 13 57 1 71 80.28% 2 9 41 0 50 82.00% 3 11 38 0 49 77.55% 4 10 39 0 49 79.59% 5 6 42 0 48 87.50% 6 6 32 0 38 84.21% SUBTOTAL 55 249 1 305 81.64% KIND. 10 30 0 40 75.00% TOTAL 65 279 1 345 80.87% FOREST PARK UNGRADED 1 29 19 1 49 38.78% 2 23 26 0 49 53.06% 3 30 37 1 68 54.41% 4 21 35 0 56 62.50% 5 19 33 0 52 63.46% 6 22 29 2 53 54.72% SUBTOTAL 144 179 4 327 54.74% KIND. 33 26 1 60 43.33% TOTAL 177 205 5 387 52.97% Page - 5 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK FRANKLIN UNGRADED 1 3 0 4 75.00% 1 6 64 1 71 90.14% 2 5 53 0 58 91.38% 3 7 33 3 43 76.74% 4 10 46 3 59 77.97% 5 8 53 1 62 85.48% 6 11 42 1 54 77.78% SUBTOTAL 48 294 9 351 83.76% KIND. 11 49 0 60 81.67% TOTAL 59 343 9 411 83.45% FULBRIGHT UNGRADED 5 4 0 9 44.44% 1 32 49 3 84 58.33% 2 44 30 0 74 40.54% 3 34 54 0 88 61. 36% 4 38 42 3 83 50.60% 5 40 41 1 82 50.00% 6 35 45 0 8'0 56.25% SUBTOTAL 228 265 7 500 53.00% KIND. 31 28 0 59 47.46% TOTAL 259 293 7 559 52.42% GARLAND UNGRADED 0 14 0 14 100.00% 1 6 19 2 27 70.37% 2 2 23 2 27 85.19% 3 2 27 2 31 87.10% 4 1 37 1 39 94.87% 5 0 40 2 42 95.24% 6 3 35 2 40 87.50% SUBTOTAL 14 195 11 220 88.64% KIND. 4 16 0 20 80.00% TOTAL 18 211 11 240 87.92% GEYER SPRINGS UNGRADED 1 7 14 0 21 66.67% 2 7 17 0 24 70.83% 3 8 13 0 21 61.90% 4 13 24 0 37 64.86% 5 4 37 0 41 90.24% 6 6 16 0 22 72.73% SUBTOTAL 45 121 0 166 72.89% KIND. 11 24 0 35 68.57% TOTAL 56 145 0 201 72.14% Page - 6 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK GIBBS UNGRADED 1 20 26 1 47 55.32% 2 18 26 1 45 57.78% 3 16 26 3 45 57.78% 4 28 35 1 64 54.69% 5 24 26 0 50 52.00% 6 20 23 0 43 53.49% SUBTOTAL 126 162 6 294 55.10% KIND. 14 25 0 39 64.10% TOTAL 140 187 6 333 56.16% ISH UNGRADED 0 6 0 6 100.00% 1 2 33 0 35 94.29% 2 0 18 0 18 100.00% 3 0 17 0 17 100.00% 4 2 26 0 28 92.86% 5 0 11 0 11 100.00% 6 0 15 0 1'5 100.00% SUBTOTAL 4 126 0 130 96.92% KIND. 0 16 0 16 100.00% TOTAL 4 142 0 146 97.26% JEFFERSON UNGRADED 3 6 0 9 66.67% 1 30 34 3 67 50,75% 2 33 33 0 66 50.00% 3 33 33 1 67 49.25% 4 38 36 1 75 48.00% 5 30 36 0 66 54.55% 6 26 33 1 60 55.00% SUBTOTAL 193 211 6 410 51.46% KIND, 32 26 1 59 44.07% TOTAL 225 237 7 469 50.53% MABELVALE UNGRADED 2 3 0 5 60.00% 1 37 62 0 99 62.63% 2 35 39 1 75 52.00% 3 44 29 0 73 39.73% 4 35 47 0 82 57.32% 5 23 57 1 81 70.37% 6 31 53 0 84 63.10% SUBTOTAL 207 290 2 499 58.12% KIND. 28 31 1 60 51. 67% TOTAL 235 321 3 559 57.42% Page - 7 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK MCDERMOTT UNGRADED 0 2 0 2 1()0.00 % 1 24 46 2 72 63.89% 2 33 41 1 75 54.67% 3 20 60 1 81 74.07% 4 37 46 0 83 55.42% 5 22 53 0 75 70.67% 6 27 49 0 76 64.47% SUBTOTAL 163 297 4 46\n1 6i.l. 0() % KIND. 30 26 4 60 43.33% TOTAL 193 32 3 8 524, 61. f,t'I. % MEADOWCLIFF UNGRADED 1 24 47 0 71 66.20% 2 19 49 0 68 72.06% 3 23 37 1 61 60.66% 4 27 48 1 76 63.16% 5 17 39 0 56 69.64% 6 18 33 1 5'2 63.46% SUBTOTAL 128 253 3 384 65.89% KIND. 26 34 0 60 56.67% TOTAL 154 287 3 444 64.64% MITCHELL UNGRADED 0 7 0 7 100.00% 1 9 29 0 38 76.32% 2 2 27 0 29 93.10% 3 2 24 0 26 92.31% 4 3 18 0 21 85. 71% 5 3 29 0 32 90.63% 6 1 18 0 19 94.74% SUBTOTAL 20 152 0 172 88.37% KIND. 4 31 0 35 88.57% TOTAL 24 183 0 207 88.41% OTTER CREEK UNGRADED 1 26 24 0 50 48.00% 2 27 23 0 50 46.00% 3 26 23 0 49 46.94% 4 20 29 0 49 59.18% 5 26 27 0 53 50.94% 6 28 23 0 51 45.10% SUBTOTAL 153 149 0 302 49.34% KIND. 26 31 0 57 54.39% TOTAL 179 180 0 359 50.14% Page - 8 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK PULASKI HEIGHTS UNGRADED 1 22 27 1 50 54.00% 2 17 29 0 46 63.04% 3 17 29 1 47 61.70% 4 8 33 1 42 78.57% 5 11 30 0 41 73.17% 6 8 32 1 41 78.05% SUBTOTAL 83 180 4 267 67.42% KIND. 25 31 2 58 53.45% TOTAL 108 211 6 325 64.92% RIGHTS ELL UNGRADED 1 0 35 0 35 100.00% 2 0 33 1 34 97.06% 3 0 27 0 27 100.00% 4 0 27 0 27 100.00% 5 0 21 0 21 100.00% 6 0 18 0 18 100.00% SUBTOTAL 0 161 1 162 99.38% KIND. 1 30 0 31 96.77% TOTAL 1 191 1 193 98.96% ROCKEFELLER UNGRADED 1 22 34 3 59 57.63% 2 5 24 1 30 80.00% 3 3 27 0 30 90.00% 4 6 27 1 34 79. 41% 5 7 26 0 33 78.79% 6 2 24 0 26 92.31% SUBTOTAL 45 162 5 212 76.42% KIND. 26 33 0 59 55.93% TOTAL 71 195 5 271 71.96% ROMINE UNGRADED 2 10 0 12 83.33% 1 10 59 0 69 85.51% 2 9 44 0 53 83.02% 3 11 40 0 51 78.43% 4 10 37 0 47 78.72% 5 8 36 2 46 78.26% 6 7 52 1 60 86.67% SUBTOTAL 57 278 3 338 82.25% KIND. 9 45 0 54 83.33% TOTAL 66 323 3 392 82.40% Page - 9 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK STEPHENS UNGRADED 0 7 0 7 100.00% 1 0 35 0 35 100.00% 2 1 22 0 23 95.65% 3 2 19 0 21 90.48% 4 1 32 0 33 96.97% 5 2 30 0 32 93.75% 6 2 17 0 19 89.47% SUBTOTAL 8 162 0 170 95.29% KIND. 4 28 0 32 87.50% TOTAL 12 190 0 202 94.06% TERRY UNGRADED 1 34 40 1 75 53.33% 2 30 38 1 69 55.07% 3 30 41 1 72 56.94% 4 38 45 1 84 53.57% 5 36 45 0 81 55.56% 6 27 54 0 81 66.67% SUBTOTAL 195 263 4 462 56.93% KIND. 32 26 2 60 43.33% TOTAL 227 289 6 522 55.36% WAKEFIELD UNGRADED 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1 29 43 2 74 58.11% 2 26 39 1 66 59.09% 3 23 42 1 66 63.64% 4 25 55 1 81 67.90% 5 23 53 2 78 67.95% 6 22 56 0 78 71. 79% SUBTOTAL 148 288 7 443 65.01% KIND. 21 38 0 59 64. 41% TOTAL 169 326 7 502 64.94% WASHINGTON UNGRADED 2 7 0 9 77.78% 1 45 117 2 164 71.34% 2 46 65 2 113 57.52% 3 58 57 0 115 49.57% 4 36 57 1 94 60.64% 5 44 51 0 95 53.68% 6 43 35 3 81 43.21% SUBTOTAL 274 389 8 671 57.97% KIND. 39 49 3 91 53.85% TOTAL 313 438 11 762 57.48% Page - 10 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK WATSON UNGRADED 1 20 53 0 73 72.60% 2 32 39 1 72 54.17% 3 18 50 0 68 73.53% 4 26 53 1 80 66.25% 5 25 57 1 83 68.67% 6 27 55 0 82 67.07% SUBTOAL 148 307 3 458 67.03% KIND. 20 40 0 60 66.67% TOTAL 168 347 3 518 66.99% WESTERN HILLS UNGRADED 1 18 31 1 50 62.00% 2 18 32 0 50 64.00% 3 16 29 1 46 63.04% 4 26 24 0 50 48.00% 5 22 31 0 53 58.49% 6 14 38 1 53 71. 70% SUBTOTAL 114 185 3 302 61. 26% KIND. 17 19 1 37 51.35% TOTAL 131 204 4 339 60.18% WILLIAMS UNGRADED 1 30 38 2 70 54.29% 2 32 37 0 69 53.62% 3 31 38 1 70 54.29% 4 44 49 1 94 52.13% 5 30 45 0 75 60.00% 6 25 41 2 68 60.29% SUBTOTAL 192 248 6 446 55.61% KIND. 26 33 0 59 55.93% TOTAL 218 281 6 505 55.64% WILSON UNGRADED 5 16 0 21 76.19% 1 33 41 0 74 55.41% 2 14 51 0 65 78.46% 3 14 37 0 51 72.55% 4 12 42 0 54 77.78% 5 14 40 0 54 74.07% 6 17 36 2 55 65.45% SUBTOTAL 109 263 2 374 70.32% KIND. 9 35 0 44 79.55% TOTAL 118 298 2 418 71. 29% Page - 11  SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK WOODRUFF UNGRADED 1 10 11 0 21 52.38% 2 5 17 0 22 77.27% 3 5 15 1 21 71.43% 4 7 18 1 2G c,9. .:n 5 17 20 0 37 54.05% 6 9 31 2 42 73.81% SUBTOTAL 53 112 4 169 66.27% KIND. 9 8 0 17 47.06% TOTAL 62 120 4 186 64.52% EASTER SEALS UNGRADED 14 4 0 18 22.22% TOTAL 14 4 0 18 22.22% ELIZ. MITCHELL UNGRADED 30 13 0 43 30.23% TOTAL 30 13 0 43 30.23% E. MITCHELL(DAY) UNGRADED 5 5 0 10 50.00% TOTAL 5 5 0 10 50.00% Page - 12 (\\J a.. Cl'. a: Q'. _J ..... CJ) ~ I.O IS) u w Cl PCSSD -  10-1-90 ENROl.LMENT REPORT (Iev. 10/15/90} I tn II'!' BI..ACK HISP.1\\NIC .'\\SI/1,N/POC -ISJ,_ JIN TNn ,r.~1rno1l lroiCXX. IIOYS GI.Rf.::\nnnvc ~Tor c:, BOYS ~UJI\u0026lt;: lOYS GIRLS nr\u0026gt;YS GIRLS 'l'O'l'AT Adkins 107 119 69 61 l 2 1 360 B/,.,/2, Arnn 1 ti nr i..r4\u0026gt; 187 151 38 27 3 l 3 l 411 /r.-.7ll 98 107 40 46 291 ~0% 205 134 166 , 125 2 6 638 \"4(_,, 7a :,q7 284 10 4 1 596 .-..2. o/a r.::.t-n 251 247 RR f.R 1 . 655 .,,\n:\n,/('.) 96 75 'io.4 \"i.l 2 1 279 __2:~ 157 155 4') 44 2 2 8 4 414 .-:./ Fuller Elem. 156 90 l i:\n4 160 560 -~:,-\nHarris 225 188 qc\n105 l 1. 1 616 ,,._\n)..., !-\"J'--..\n.v..\n.\nl1l_ e\n...:\nE~llf'!lll=~-..iu-,n,-L-7'---.c..?..1.t\n~Q,.,_..._l.._l..__1-+-'l'--l=+--9- ..\n:2\n_.,_.,._...\n5\n..__..,_..\n:f\u0026gt;\n.._-+-..:b\n.._.-+----4---l---8!\"-1~7.!...-'--'_.,.z:+:).S-:.-_ I Lancbmrk 162 144 1 u-. 130 Cf,\nf, ~r- Lawson l'i3 139 1.'io 18 345 J./:\n_ Oak Grove El. 266 22 7 \"l9 40 l 573 /- OakbrCX\u0026gt;ke 282 238 67 72 659 ..:1/ Pine Forest 291 288 40 57 1 677 14 Pinewood 725 222 74 95 1 1 l ~ 1 q ~7 Robinson Elem. 170 165 60 37 1 433 ~ . I Scott 75 61 38 33 ~07 .-Kf Shen.ood 169 170 51 58 448 ..::.'\n-1 S. Hills Elem. \"lf\u0026gt; l \"ll\\R 7fi 4Q 4 l l .l 1 802 //- Taylor 17\"l ,~.... '\u0026gt;4 71 1 468 A~ Tolleson 22 6 200 1.4 6'.\u0026gt; 3 3 5 3 566 ..::J~ 'IUl'AL EUN. 4 i\n1q 4 1.15 l iifl2 l. 532 16 15 30 27 3 l 12 000 ,~G- ~ I l I f\\tl..ler Jr. I J'ville North 297 .I J'ville South 717 1 J 'ville Hiah 414 ! Mil'ls 203 North Pulaski 328 Northwood 403 Oak Grove Hiat 429 ~- Jr. Hiah 174 Rob. Sr. High 195 S.Hills Jr. 365 c:: \u0026amp;HIie, 1-li.nh. 1f'i.A I 'IOTAL \"\\ 617 199' 242 203 403 180 306 339 372 179 161 355 \"l.Ti 3.312 204 89 86 135 164 89 105 114 64 64 130 110 1.354 200 92 70 148 136 65 86 109 51 46 97 10:\n,_ 1.202 4 3 2 2 1 1 3 5 7 12 l 1 4 3 2 1 1 4 2 T 19 16 25 1 1 l 5 . 22 2 1 3 3 1 l 43 4 2 2 .i , 837 n.n 1.150 685 ....:J./2/ 940 l 027 468 466 ~,- 'IOT--Af.-O-TS'l'-.-+-8-2_5_6..J-.-7_4_4_7-1-2-.-9-5-6--L2-.-7-3_4.J__3_5_.J.___3 _1_ J__5_5_-1---7-0-J-~7-4---6-t::2:-:l-.-:5-::-9-=17 c,2C.ib I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas RACIAL COMPOSITION OF SCHOOLS October 1, 1990 School Enrollment Black % Non-Black % Amboy 407 179 44.0 228 56.0 Argenta 236 157 66.5 79 33.5 Baring Cross 17 8 47.1 9 52.9 Belwood 168 61 36.3 107 6 3. 7 Boone Park 489 294 60.1 195 39.9 Crestwood 223 80 35.9 143 64.l Glenview 244 138 56.6 106 43.4 Indian Hills 442 158 35.7 284 64.3 Lakewood 242 96 39.7 146 60.3 Lynch Drive 261 118 45.2 143 54.8 Meadow Park 295 150 50.8 145 49.2 North Heights 443 217 49.0 226 51.0 Park Hill 210 94 44.8 116 55.2 Pike View 4 36 206 47.2 230 52.8 Pine 182 102 56.0 80 44.0 Redwood 265 162 61. l 103 38.9 Rose City 215 111 51.6 104 48.4 Seventh Stre~et 354 194 54.8 160 45.2 Total Elem. 5,129 2,525 49.2% 2,604 50.8% (Including Kindergarten) NLRHS-East 1,372 605 44.1 767 55.9 NLRHS-West 1,180 443 37.5 737 62.5 Lakewood Jr. 567 247 4 3. 6 320 56.4 Ridgeroad Jr. 523 231 44.2 292 55.8 Rose City Jr. 394 207 52.5 187 47.5 Baring Cross 29 21 72. 4 8 27.6 Total Sec. 4,065 1,754 43.1% 2 I 311 56.9% DISTRICT: 9,194 4,279 46.5% 4,915 53.5% School Amboy Argenta Baring Cross Belwood Boone Park Crestwood Glenview Indian Hills Lakewood Lynch Drive Meadow Park North Heights Park Hill Pike View Pine Redwood NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas RACIAL COMPOSITION OF SCHOOLS October 1, 19 90 Enrollment 337 186 Black % 163 48.4 112 60.2 7 43.8 56 38. 6 235 61.2 75 38 . 1 121 55.3 145 38.3 95 43.8 109 46.8 12a so.a 196 52.4 Rose City Seventh Street 16 145 384 197 219 379 217 233 256 374 1 79 380 152 210 180 29 7 88 49.2 187 49.2 77 50.7 114 54.3 97 53.9 140 47.1 Total Elem. 4,341 * (Excluding Kindergarten) NLRHS-East NLRHS-West Lakewood Jr. Ridgeroad Jr. Rose City Jr. Baring Cross Total Sec. DISTRICT: 1,372 1,180 567 523 394 29 4,065 8,406 2,145 49.4% 605 44.1 443 37.5 247 43.6 231 44.2 207 52.5 21 72.4 1,754 43.1% 3,899 46.4% Non-Black % 174 51.6 74 39.8 9 56. 3 89 61.4 149 38.8 122 61.9 98 44.7 234 61.7 122 56.2 124 53.2 128 50.0 1 78 4 7. 6 91 so.a 193 50.8 75 49.3 96 45.7 83 46.1 157 52.9 2,196 50.6% 767 55.9 737 62.5 320 56.4 292 55.8 187 47.5 8 27.6 2,311 56.9% 4,507 53.6% *In conformance with the NLRSD's court approved student assignment plan, kindergarten students are not bused for racial balance purposes and are excluded in determining a school's compliance with racial balance guidelines.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1265","title":"Parent Committee: Questionnaire, ''can serve''","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":["1990-09-07"],"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","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Parents"],"dcterms_title":["Parent Committee: Questionnaire, ''can serve''"],"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/1265"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["12 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":132,"next_page":133,"prev_page":131,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1572,"total_count":1850,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":1843},{"value":"Sound","hits":4},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":289},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":220},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":179},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":69},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":30},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":12},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":11},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":6},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":5},{"value":"Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services","hits":4},{"value":"Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":1745},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":1244},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":1207},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":886},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":721},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":690},{"value":"School integration","hits":604},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":601},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":560},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":474},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":417}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":6},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2},{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":2},{"value":"Armor, David","hits":1},{"value":"Eddington, Ramsey","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Joshua","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Knight","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Sam","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Stephen W.","hits":1},{"value":"Joshua, Lorene","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1849},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1836},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1799},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1539},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":10},{"value":"United States, Missouri, 38.25031, -92.50046","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Missouri, Saint Louis City County, Saint Louis, 38.65588, -90.30928","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Kansas, 38.50029, -98.50063","hits":2},{"value":"United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Chicot County, 33.26725, -91.29397","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1836},{"value":"Missouri","hits":5},{"value":"Kansas","hits":2},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":2},{"value":"New York","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Illinois","hits":1},{"value":"Maryland","hits":1},{"value":"Michigan","hits":1},{"value":"Ohio","hits":1},{"value":"Oklahoma","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":385},{"value":"1995","hits":376},{"value":"1996","hits":334},{"value":"1993","hits":312},{"value":"1992","hits":292},{"value":"1999","hits":273},{"value":"1997","hits":268},{"value":"1991","hits":255},{"value":"2001","hits":252},{"value":"2000","hits":251},{"value":"1998","hits":245},{"value":"2002","hits":182},{"value":"1990","hits":173},{"value":"2003","hits":164},{"value":"2004","hits":148},{"value":"1989","hits":134},{"value":"2005","hits":119},{"value":"2006","hits":86},{"value":"2011","hits":62},{"value":"2010","hits":60},{"value":"2007","hits":57},{"value":"1988","hits":51},{"value":"2008","hits":47},{"value":"2009","hits":47},{"value":"1987","hits":35},{"value":"1986","hits":30},{"value":"2012","hits":30},{"value":"1984","hits":27},{"value":"1985","hits":23},{"value":"2013","hits":19},{"value":"1983","hits":16},{"value":"1982","hits":15},{"value":"1980","hits":13},{"value":"1981","hits":13},{"value":"1974","hits":12},{"value":"1975","hits":12},{"value":"1976","hits":12},{"value":"1977","hits":12},{"value":"1978","hits":12},{"value":"1979","hits":12},{"value":"1973","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1967","hits":9},{"value":"1968","hits":9},{"value":"1969","hits":9},{"value":"1970","hits":9},{"value":"1971","hits":9},{"value":"1972","hits":9},{"value":"1954","hits":8},{"value":"1966","hits":8},{"value":"1950","hits":7},{"value":"1951","hits":7},{"value":"1952","hits":7},{"value":"1953","hits":7},{"value":"1955","hits":7},{"value":"1956","hits":7},{"value":"1957","hits":7},{"value":"1958","hits":7},{"value":"1959","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":7},{"value":"1961","hits":7},{"value":"1962","hits":7},{"value":"1963","hits":7},{"value":"1964","hits":7},{"value":"1965","hits":7},{"value":"2017","hits":6},{"value":"2015","hits":5},{"value":"2016","hits":5},{"value":"2018","hits":5},{"value":"2019","hits":5},{"value":"2020","hits":5},{"value":"2021","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"2023","hits":5},{"value":"2024","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2024","count":5114,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":904},{"value":"reports","hits":255},{"value":"judicial records","hits":232},{"value":"legal documents","hits":207},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":67},{"value":"project management","hits":62},{"value":"budgets","hits":38},{"value":"correspondence","hits":23},{"value":"handbooks","hits":20},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":17},{"value":"handbills","hits":16}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}