{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1299","title":"Parent Committee: Questionnaire, ''will serve on another''","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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Parents"],"dcterms_title":["Parent Committee: Questionnaire, ''will serve on another''"],"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/1299"],"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":["201 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1186","title":"Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation","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":["Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services"],"dc_date":["1990-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Arkansas State University","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Education--Standards","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation"],"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/1186"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n Pulashi Count, lntsrdistriGt Magnet SGh.ool Program Ealuation PursU6 Ths Posail,ilitiss ! AN EVALUATION OF THE PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM Prepared For The Magnet Review Committee Conducted by Office of Educational Research \u0026amp; Services Arkansas State University September, 1990 Donald E. Wright, Director Virginia A. Rhodes, Office Manager INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Data Collection Instrument Development for Parent Survey Standardized Test Data Results of Parent Survey Population Demographics survey Data Analysis Procedures category Comparisons Statist~cal Analysis Results of Standardized Test Minimum Performance Test (MPT) Grade 3 Grade 6 Grade 8 Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 10 Summary Statements Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C OCT 2 0 \\992 O I. e o, De~ grei:1 1 3 3 7 8 8 17 18 18 33 54 55 55 62 79 95 95 102 110 117 120 123 136 INTRODUCTION The Magnet Review Committee (MRC), after intense study of the first evaluation report, decided to continue collecting data on some aspects of that report and to expand the data collection to other criteria. The recommendations of the external evaluator provided guidance for the committee in this decision-making process. The results of the first report revealed some concerns existed in the categorical areas of transportation, recruitment of students and parent and community involvement. Additionally, the committee wanted to explore the use of standardized achievement test scores to provide evaluative data regarding the magnet schools. Therefore, the external evaluator was requested to submit a continuing proposal to conduct the second phase of the evaluation of the Interdistrict Magnet School Program. Project Objectives The following objectives were constructed to guide the evaluator in conducting the project: 1. To develop an instrument for data collection that will re-examine the attitudes/opinions of all parents of magnet school students. The instrument will focus on those items from the 1988 data collection instrument where fifteen percent or more of the parents disagreed with the positively stated item. 2. To obtain 1989 standardized scale scores for the following tests for the appropriate grade groups: A. Minimum Performance Test (MPT) Grades 3-6-8. B. Metropolitan Achievement Test, 6th edition (MAT-6) Grades 4-7-10. 1 3. To utilize appropriate evaluation techniques and strategies in the analysis of data and the correct interpretation of results. 4. To file a written report that will enable the Magnet Review Committee to utilize as evidence when changes in the magnet school program are considered. Methodology The following procedural activities were conducted in completing the study: 1. Data from the 1988 survey were reviewed by the research team and six questions were identified as having a 15 percent disagreement response. These six questions were from the categories of Philosophy, Policy and Practice (one question)\nResource Allocation (one question)\nand Parent and Community Involvement (four questions). The research team developed a new data collection instrument to proportionally reflect these categories. 2. Data was requested from the Little Rock School District and the State Department of Education for the appropriate standardized test data. 3. The data were analyzed by both descriptive and inferential statistics. The PC microcomputer, the PFS data base, and the SYSTAT statistical package were used in the data analysis. 2 DATA COLLECTION Instrument Development for the Parent survey The evaluation team critically assessed each item of the 1988 survey that received a 15 percent disagreement response. The consensus of the team was that it would take several questions to truly examine the expressed concern of the parents. The team was also aware that the MRC had implemented changes that were predicted to have a favorable impact on the parent responses. The first item analyzed was from the Philosophy, Policy and Practice category and was as follows: \"The recruitment procedures provided me with enough information to make a choice about enrolling my child in a magnet school.\" - Fifteen percent of the parents disagreed with this statement. This disagreement ratio lead the team to construct three questions regarding recruitment to further investigate the parents' concern. These items were as follows: 10. All of my questions about magnet schools were answered before I selected this school for my child. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. The second item analyzed was from the category of Resource Allocation and read as follows: \"Transportation to this school is satisfactory for my child.\" Fifteen percent of the parents recorded a disagree response for this item. As before, this ratio of disagreement 3 responses prompted the team to develop four new questions focusing on the transportation issue. These questions were as follows: 7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 18. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. Four questions with more than 15 percent of the parents recording a disagreement response came from the category Parent and Community Involvement. These items and the respective percent of disagreement were as follows: \"I am actively involved in this school.\" (26 percent). \"Members of the community (other than students' parents) are actively involved in this school.\" (32 percent). \"The community is aware of this school's magnet theme.\" (20 percent). \"I receive information about activities at my child's magnet school in plenty of time to attend.\" (21 percent). As would be expected, the Magnet Review Committee expressed considerable concern regarding the parent responses to questions regarding Parent and Community Involvement. The evaluation team responded by developing ten new questions for the survey form regarding this component. Those questions were as follows: 4 6. I attend school programs and activities on a regular basis. 8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and programs in the magnet schools. 9. The school actively encourages parent involvement. 11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. - 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 17. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. 19. Community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. After reviewing these ten statements, it was of interest to the team and the MRC to determine just how do parents get information about their child's school activities. Thus, the need for the last survey question was created. 5 \"I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: A. from school notices sent home. B. from talking with my child. c. from announcements in newspapers, on radio, or T.V. D. from talking with other parents.\" Following team consensus on the individual items and the total package of items, the survey form was submitted to the MRC for review and revision. The MRC approved the survey items and format with minor suggestions. These items were incorporated into the final draft of the evaluation instrument. Security of the data is always a major concern to an evaluator. Attention was given to ensure that the survey data was not compromised in any manner. The Director and office staff of the MRC mailed a survey form directly to all parents of magnet school students, K-12. This mailing included instructions and a stamped addressed envelope for returning the completed form to the MRC office. At set intervals the MRC office forwarded all returned responses in the sealed envelopes to the Office of Educational Research. These large packages were usually transported by a commercial bus line. The building principals assisted with the parent survey by encouraging parents via the school newsletter and parent meetings to complete and return the survey form. The office manager of the Office of Educational Research received and inspected each package from the MRC office. This process included coding the population group, numbering each survey form, checking for incompleted forms, 6 and verifying the integrity of the security process. All data entry and data analysis were conducted by the staff of the Office of Educational Research. Proper caution, concern and reconciliation were exercised during data entry and data analysis. Standardized Test Data All standardized test data for the magnet school students were obtained from the Little Rock School District. Although several delays did occur in obtaining these results, the Little Rock School District personnel were cooperative in complying with the request. The comparative group was the state average. This information was obtained from the Arkansas State Department of Education. The department personnel were extremely helpful and cooperative in complying with the request. 7 RESULTS OF PARENT SURVEY The evaluation team coded the survey responses to provide two types of information. Demographic information from the parents was coded for sorting of the survey items other than by school to provide a clear picture of the parent opinions. Additionally, the items were coded numerically for statistical purposes. Population Demographics Population data on the records of the MRC indicated there were 3412 parents of magnet school students in grades K-12. There were 2047 usuable survey forms returned by the parents. Only fifteenparents indicated they had two or more students in the magnet school program. The data for these parents were recorded only once and allocated to the first - school/grade listed on the returned form. Although several parents did not answer all questions, only a small number (19) of the survey forms were determined to be unusable because of incorrect markings on the instrument. These adjusted figures computed to a return rate of 60 percent. This is judged by the evaluator to be an excellent return rate for this type survey. The following graphs presents a profile of the parents responding to the survey. The data reveals that 23.6 percent of the parents responding have students attending Booker Elementary School. The other schools and the respective percent of parents responding were as follows: Carver, 8 17.34 percent\nGibbs, 13.24 percent\nWilliams, 19.69 percent\nMann, 17.05 percent\nand Parkview, 9.09 percent. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES IMGtET SCHOOL PARENTS PEHCEHT sos.---------------------, BICR o.'R 008 WMS WH PICV PERCENT Cl= IDT,6l,. BY ~00.. The race of the parents responding was black, 47.48 percent\nwhite, 50.51 percent\nall other 1.71 percent. Only six parents (.29 percent of the total) elected to not respond to this question. SLMAARV a= RESPONSES WtSET SCHOOL PARENTS PBUNI' eos---------------------, IUOC 'MtTE OTlER PEFa:NT RESPODNG B'f RAO: 9 The total race distribution by school was also presented. These data reveal that for the total 972 black parents, 24 - percent had students at Booker\n20 percent had students at Williams\nand the school with the smallest number of black parents was Parkview with 10 percent. The 1034 white parents were distributed similarly with 22.6 percent at Booker\n19.5 percent at Williams\nand 8.2 percent at Parkview. There were 35 parents of the other race that responded to the survey. Gibbs and Mann had the highest percent of these parents with 25.7 percent. SWMARY OF RESJ\u0026gt;C5ES MAGtETSQiOOLPHElTS SOSPBaNT~:::::::::.:---------------7 BIOi 01A OBS Y6III WM R\u0026lt;V PEFO:NT ~ TOTAL RK:E BY SCH0CX.  a...oc-012 E:a WK1'0IM rz3 onER35 The within school race distribution revealed that Booker parents were about evenly divided\nParkview had more black 10 parents responding\nwhereas, Carver, Gibbs, Williams and Mann - had more white parents responding. Sl.MAARY OF RESPONSES MAGtET SCHOOL PJ1'FENTS PERCENT eos.---------------------, ~ ~ aos 20S -OS M-l!Ol7 Ell\u0026lt;R C\\11 GBS WMS l,W,I ACY AKE ClSTRIBUTIOO BY SCHOa.  euac E'::a YffTE cm ontER The parents were asked to identify their residence as to the district in which they lived. These responses revealed that 1388 (67.81 percent) of the parents lived in Little Rock, 429 (20.96 percent) in Pulaski County district and 213 (10.41 percent) lived in North Little Rock school district. Additional sorting revealed that 22 percent of the Little Rock parents have students at Booker, whereas, 30 percent of the North Little Rock parents have students at Booker. Likewise, 23 percent of Little Rock parents have students at Williams, but, only 10.8 percent of North Little Rock parents have students at Williams. The greater proportion of Pulaski 11 County parents have students at Booker (25.41 percent), Carver (24.71 percent), and Mann (21.45 percent). SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PNENTS PERCENT -40S.---------------------, 20S BtGI Ot'A OBS WMS t.lAN PKV asrncr RES1CENCE sv sa-KX:t.. - UTT\\.E ROOC- ~ NQ. UTTU! ROOC-2'19 C:\nJ PU.,'8111 \u0026lt;D.HTYlt- e\u0026lt;M7 A fourth disaggregation of the data revealed that 51. 55 percent of Carver parents lived in the Little Rock district, 29.86 percent lived in the Pulaski County district and 17.18 percent lived in the North Little Rock district. Plnsll PARENT DISTRBJTION MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS 100....------------------- QO 80 80 74 BICA CIN \u0026lt;JBlll8 WMIS I.WM PKVW Resident llstrlct llstrlblilon Bv Scrod - Uttta !bcx-\u0026amp;18 ~ ~ Oa.-4211 CD N. Uttll Aadt~ ...,~ 12 When the data were analyzed with the two variables of race - and resident district the results revealed that 71.3 ~ercent of the black parent respondents lived in the Little Rock district. Sixty-four percent of the white parents responding lived in Little Rock and 74.29 percent of the other race parents lived in Little Rock. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MASETSQtOOLPNENTS PERCEfT 100Sr---------------------, DOS sos ~ 110'\u0026amp; l50S 40S sos 20'\u0026amp; BUOC41'2 ~ 01HEJk'8 AKE ClSTR\u0026amp;JTlOO rN OOTRICT - lJtM Aadl m ~ Qull:y CJ N. Ullle FIDdl Additional analysis revealed that by race the Little Rock parent respondents were evenly split black to white\nwhereas, 13 both Pulaski County and North Little Rock had a higher proportion of white parents responding. SUYMRY CF RESPONSES MAGtET SCHOOL PAfEN\"TS PERCEHT ~.--------------------, llOS ~ ~ ~ 50'5 -40'\u0026amp; SO'S 20'S -OS ~ IUOC 'M-tTE OTlJI DSTRICf OOTRIEUTIOO BY RACE -Ut11a--- ~~~ c:JN.U-~ ... SA/EV An area that is always of interest to the MRC is the parents responding that had children attending a magnet school for a second year. Data from the surveys revealed that for all students 73 percent of those that attended last year were from the Little Rock district, whereas, 58 percent of those that did not attend last year were also from Little Rock. SlMAARY OF RESPONSES PERCEHT UJI\u0026amp;.---------------------, 7ft YES HO ATTENEl LA'\u0026gt;T YEAR aSTR BY OSTRICf - UTTl A00C ~ PU...4l6IQ \u0026lt;XllfTY C:J N. UTTl.E ROCJ( ... III.IMY 14 When each district was analyzed the results revealed that 70 percent of the Little Rock parents had students attending a magnet school for the second year. Also noted was that over 50 percent of the Pulaski County and North Little Rock parents had students attending a magnet school for the second year. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES Maglet School Parada 10PE0HC'8SfT .,.::\n_------------------, GOS PU.MIQ 00. UT1l ROCJ( N. urn. ROOIC asTRICf OSTR BY ATTENCED L\u0026gt;ST YEAR ves ~NO When data was disaggregated by school, the results were that the elementary school parents were largely parents with students attending a magnet school for the second year. The 15 secondary school parents were about evenly split between new students to the program and students returning for a second year. SUM\\1ARY CF RESPONSES Mavlet School Parel,ts PEflCENT ICO'S.-------------------- IIOS ~ 70'\u0026amp; IIOll ~ ~ ~ 20S vs OS IJ\u0026lt;R o.'A \u0026lt;.- Me .... PKYW ATT8CED UiS( YEAR ClSTR 8f SOfOCt. -VE\u0026amp; r::aNO When race was coupled with the attended last year variable, it was found that a significantly higher proportion of black parent respondents had students in the second year of the magnet program than the white parents. The percentages were 69 percent to 62 percent respectively. SlMMRY a= RESPONSES 1P0EHC0ENT- -------------------, 110 BUOC-4'72 ~ ona,ea AKE ClSTR 8V ATTeOED LA.ST YEAR - RT9CB) ~ 00 NCf R'1BO ~ ....0 Dllla 16 - When the individual schools were added to these variables, the data revealed that of the parents responding a higher percentage of black parents had students in a magnet school for a second year than the white parents. The only reversal of this was Gibbs Elementary School with a larger percentage of white parents reporting attended last year. The secondary schools of Mann and Parkview were evenly split. SlM\\1ARY OF RESPONSES MagJlet School Parents t20\n....:PERCENT=-:..::.=.:...: ______________- -, 100 BO survey Data 80 48 EUO\u0026lt; 'VBS WHITE Yfll AKE B'f AJTEr,IE) LAST YEAR B'f SQ-100.. - 80CICBI ~ ~ Cl OIBI -~ Each respondent was asked to react to the survey items with a sincere attitude using the following scale: T if you think the statement is true GT i:f you think the statement is generally true GF i:f you think the statement is generally false F if you think the statement is false To begin the statistical analysis, it was necessary to assign numerical values to the categories of responses (i.e.' T=l, GT=2, GF=3, F=4) on the survey form. 17 Analysis Procedures The initial stage of the data analysis was descriptive in form. Cumulative summary information provided frequency distributions and graphs on each demographic variable and survey item. After examining the distribution of responses for each survey item via each variable, cross-tabulation contingency tables were completed to investigate the relationships among the items and the demographic information. The non-parametric chi-square test of significance was utilized to determine if the variables were statistically independent. Category Comparison This section of the report focused on the composite responses of the population for each of the survey categories. The three categories of survey items were Recruitment, Transportation and Parent and Community Involvement. The data in the accompanying graph illustrates that the parents as a population rated the survey items overall quite high (i.e., 1.789 on a scale of l=High or true to 4=Low or false.) This value revealed the summary rating for all items to be better than generally true. The three category areas fared almost as well. The area of recruitment had the highest agreement with community involvement the lowest. However, all ratings were better than generally true. The specific survey items for each category were also presented in graphic form. The category, item and survey form numbers are presented prior to the graphic displaying the responses to categories as follows: 18 Recruitment: 10. All of my questions about magnet schools were answered before I selected this school for my child. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. Transportation: 7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 18. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. Parent~ Community Involvement: 6. I attend school programs and activities on a regular basis. 8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and programs in the magnet schools. 9. The school actively encourages parent involvement. 11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 19 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 17. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. 19. community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e., museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. 2A 2.2 2.0 u 1.4 \\2 ~ OF RESPONSES WQETSCHOOLPNl:NTS RAlNJ \\110111 TOW. ~ IE\u0026lt;JUT\\ENT CD,,M IN\\Q.V. SlJM?f ~IES -MJWERRlNO The total distribution of responses for each item is presented in Appendix A. 20 Recruitment Category Swnmary - The parents of the magnet school students were very positive in their responses regarding recruitment of students. The parents were quite sure that most, if not all, questions were answered before they selected a school for their child. This was especially so for parents with children attending a magnet school for the first time. Generally, all parents felt that they were clear about the expectations for students of a particular magnet school. This value appeared to be a result of increased effort by the MRC to familiarize parents of students new to the magnet schools of the expectations. Yet, the parents of white students were not as positive as other parents, and the parents of North Little Rock students were less satisfied regarding information about expectations - for students than were other parents. The expectations for parents of magnet school students appears to be quite clear to all parents. SLMMRY CF RESPONSES MacJiet School Para1l8 ,.\n..:ARNI..:.\n....::_ _______________ , \\76 \\IIIM 2 011rEDCRt aJEBT10N 10 aencN  a.oncN 20 Aecnitrrent Q.Jestkre - AIEJWJE RAIN) 21 SLMAARY a= RESPONSES Mcvlet School Paet,ls Pwoa1t 70Sr---------------------. DOS Tna Oan.True OlnFaN FalN ~ a.a Reatitment Questions - CHO ~ 0-11 tZJ CHO Transportation Category Summary The parents of the magnet school students were overall quite positive in their responses regarding transportation of the students. The black parents tended to disagree more that \"the bus is generally on time at the bus stops,\" whereas, the white parents tended to disagree more that \"the amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me.\" The bus drivers were viewed by parents to generally be \"competent, courteous, and in control of the students on the bus.\" The parents in Pulaski County were very positive in their reactions as were the parents of most elementary students. The parent of a secondary student sometimes recorded a negative response. The parents of black students that were pleased were very pleased, but the ones that were unhappy were quite unhappy. Information about \"bus schedules, bus stop locations and expected student conduct on the bus\" could be better disseminated. Several parents, especially black Little Rock parents, reported dissatisfaction with the information they had received. 22  SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MagJlet School Parents RATING 4.-------------------- 3 2 0 CAlEQCRY 0-7 o- Q-IB ~ TRANSPOUAllON OLESTI~ - AIEJWERRlNO SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MagJ)et School Parents Pwoa1t 10S------------------- l50S sos 1hia Oln.Tna OaF-. F-. ~ Oda Trmspatalial Q.Jestions - CH ~ O- mJ 0-19 - 0-2' 111811tlHOQ Community Involvement Summary The parents of magnet school students submitted responses that indicate a continual need for efforts by the MRC and the magnet school administrators to improve this area. Although parents as a population attend magnet school programs and 23 activities, some voids still exist. Parents of students new to the magnet school family\nparents of Parkview High School\nblack parents especially of grades 7, 8 and 10\nand parents residing in the county district do not attend at the same ratio as other parents. Some parents, especially black parents of students at Booker, Mann and Parkview do not feel that the media provides adequate coverage of the school programs and activities. But, generally, the parents of black children feel significantly stronger than the other parents that the school activity encourages parent involvement and they can discuss their concerns during school meetings. These black parents, however, confess that their responsibilities at home and/or at work prevent them from being active in their child's school. There is no more than a 50-50 chance that parents know what is occurring at the other magnet schools. SlJIMARY OF RESPONSES MacJJet School Para,ts Pwod 70Sr--------------------, Tna Gan.True Olr\\Faaa ,=... ~ Olla Camulity ll\"l'tOl\\rent Questions  o-e ~ o-e d o-o  o-n ~ 0-12 24 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MagJlet School Parents RAl1N(3 .. .------------------~ 3 2.547 001:0CA't o-. o-. o-o o-n 0-12 c:nM...t,IITY INVCt..ve.ENT QlESTIONS -MRMRR1NO - The parents reported that the communities of Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski county are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers and providing materials and special equipment. Parents with students that were in the magnet schools previously reported that community organizations and civic centers were active as hosts for magnet school class visits. Elementary grades one and two, and secondary grades eleven and twelve apparently do not make use of this resource as often as the other grades. The parents, especially black parents with students in the magnet schools last year, felt strongly that information about magnet schools is available. 25 SUMMARY a= RESPONSES Mcvlet School Parents 11Plro0a1I '5.-------------------. Tn e.n.Tna e.n.Faea \"-- .-..,U D11111 Camulity lr?.oMlrrent Questions - 0-M ~ 0-15 c.:J 0-17 - 0-9 = ~ ~ a= RESPONSES Mac,letSchoolPaalla R-IJ1N-Q ---------------~ s 2 0 2. .. 0IIJE80R'f 0-14 0-15 0-17 o- 0-a cnu.NTY INVCl.ve.ENT Cl.STIONS -MJWERRNJ 26 In addition to the distribution of the total parent responses, it was decided to present the categorical responses by school. These graphics are presented in the following pages. The parents of Booker Elementary students reported an overall average of 1.828. This average compared to the highest rating of 1.736 for the transportation category and a low rating of 1.908 for the parent and community involvement category. This view is that the items were better than generally true. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES Mag,et School Parents ~RATIN~C3 -------------------, 2.2 2.0 1.8 \\8 1. \\2 1.0 0.8 o.e O. 0.2 0.0 ~ AEaUTl,ENT OCl,U.HTY INY. TOW. ~NERIGES - BOOICEI 1ll80 27 The parents of Carver Elementary students reported a somewhat higher average for the total instrument (1.731.) The best Carver rating was for the category of recruitment (1.546) and the lowest rating of 1.851 for parent and community involvement. As with Booker, the Carver parent ratings signal a better than generally true observation by the respondents. 2A ,... t2 1.0 a.a 0.11 QA 0.2 0..0 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES Mcviet School Parents RA11N0 nwe\u0026gt;CJrW1ClH RE\u0026lt;JU1\\ENT CD,MHTY IHY. 1CTM. CATEGORYNER.AGES - QllfWER 1IIIIO 28 The parents of Gibbs Elementary students reported very similar responses to all areas. The averages ranged from 1.638 for the transportation category to 1.786 for the parent and community involvement category. The overall average for Gibbs' parents was 1 . 682. SUM\\1ARY OF RESPONSES Mculet School Para1ls ' RATNJ 2A 2.2 2.() 1.8 \\II \\A \\2 \\0 o.a 0.11 TIWG'OIWlON REffil.11\\ENT cx::w.aNTY INY. 10TM. CATEGORY NERIG:S -GIBBS1Gll8 29 - The parents of students attending Williams magnet school responded in a very positive manner. A very high rating of 1.483 was noted for the recruitment category and a very positive overall rating of 1.677. As with the other elementary schools, the parents of Williams students rated the parent and community involvement as the lowest category. u 2.2 2.0 1.8 \\ti 1A \\2 \\,() 0,8 a.a o. 0.2 SUWMRY OF RESPONSES Mac,let School Paents IWN3 \\8138 0.0 TRNG'CRW10N RE\u0026lt;JUl\\ENT 00,U.HTY INV. lOrM. CATEGORVNER.6GES - M.1.W,11 111119 HlMlER - 40IS 30 - The parents of the junior high (students of Mann magnet school) responded with averages closer to the generally true rating. The overall average was 1.935, the recruitment category 1.767, the transportation category 1.861, and parent and community involvement 2.038. 2.4 2.2 2.0 \\.8 \\II 1.4 \\2 \\.0 0.8 0.11 QA 0.2 0.0 SUMMARY CF RESPONSES Mac,let School Parents RA1N3 2.cm ~ REOIUT\\EHT CO\u0026amp;\u0026amp;HTY INY. 10W. ~NEFW3ES ..... 111118 31 - The parents of students at Parkview high school had very similar responses to the parents of the junior high students. These were very close to the generally true level. The strongest rating average was the recruitment category and, as was now expected, the category of parent and community involvement was the highest numerical value which meant the poorest response. 0.4 0.2 0.0 SlM'AARY OF RESPONSES M\nvlet School Parents AAlN3 TIWCSPCRW1CJN RE\u0026lt;JUn.EHT OCMW.HTY INY. 10fM. ~NERAGES -PNIIC'o1EW'll80 - The responses for each item by school is presented in Appendix B. 32 Statistical Analysis To analyze and interpret the data, the statistical technique \"Chi-Square\" was utilized. This technique was selected because of its power in analyzing frequency data resulting from survey responses. Because of the extremely large number of parent responses the evaluation team anticipated large Chi-Square values signaling highly significant differences for the comparison of the demographic values. The same technique was used in the Phase I (1988) evaluation and a complete rationale was presented in that report, therefore, it will not be repeated in this report. Likewise, the team applied the Pearson Contingency Coefficient to the Chi-Square values in order to measure the strength of association among the demographic variables and the ratings on the separate survey items. The range of \"strength of association\" is from a low of 0.00 to a high of 1.00 with a marginal association accepted at 0.20. For an item to be significant for a particular demographic variable it must be significant by Chi-Square computation and meet the criteria of strength of association according to the Pearson Contingency Coefficient. The evaluation team, recognizing that the significance of a single demographic descriptor may have specific meaning and impact to the MRC, elected to present consensus statements regarding each survey item rather than address only the significant difference. Additionally, a graphic of the responses by school is presented in this section. 33 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 QlO Qll Ql2 Ql3 Ql4 Ql5 Ql6 Ql7 Ql8 Ql9 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Race NS NS s s NS s s NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY Item by Demographic Magnet School Parent District School Grade NS S* s s s NS NS NS NS NS NS s NS NS NS s NS NS NS NS s NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS s NS -. NS NS NS s s NS NS s NS s s NS s s NS NS NS NS NS NS NS s s ALY NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS s * This item and this demographic descriptor meet the criteria of the Chi-Square and the Pearson Contingency Coefficient for significant differences. s = Significant Difference NS= Non-Significant Difference 34 Question #6. I attend school programs and activities on a regular basis. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT 80$r---------------------------, TRUE GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL g BOOKER rnilIJ WILLIAMS O MANN N 2047 QUESTION e J::::::::::::j CA.AVER - PARKVIEW FALSE - GIBBS The responses appear to be true or generally true for the vast majority. However, the parents of the \"new\" students reported they did not attend as regularly as the parents of \"old\" students. As the graph illustrates, the parents of the secondary schools attend programs and activities on a much less regular basis. Parents of black children were less regular in attendance as were parents of children in grades 7, 8, and 10. Parents in the Little Rock district were more in agreement with this item than parents living in the Pulaski county district. 35 Question #7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT 80$------------------------- TRUE GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES SY SCHOOL - TOTAL a BOOKER [mil) WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 7 r::::::::i:j CARVER - PAAKVIEW - GIBBS The responses reveal the parents of Gibbs Students feel very comfortable with this transportation item. The other school's parents responses were very similar. Other analyzes indicate that parents of black students rated the item somewhat lower than whites\nparents of Pulaski county students rated the item higher\nand no other marked differences were found for this item. 36 Question #8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and programs in the magnet schools. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT eo~.....--------------------------. 30~ ,o, 0~ TRUE GEN, TRUE GEN, FALSE FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL B BOOKER mmJ WILLIAMS O MANN CZ] CARVER - GI BBS - PARKVIEW N2047 QUESTION 8 As illustrated by the graph, the parents are still not totally satisfied with the media coverage. The parents of black students responded in the extreme categories of true and false\nwhereas, the parents of white students responded more in the general categories. Otherwise, the district of residence, the school attended, the grade of the student or if it was a second year student had no effect on the parent response. 37 Question #9. The school actively encourages parent involvement. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT 100$ ..---------------------------, 80$ 40$ 20$ TRUE - TOTAL mmJ WILLIAMS N2047 QUESTION Q GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SQHOOL - BOOKER D MANN J::::::::::::) CARVER - PARKVIEW FALSE - GIBBS The data in the graph illustrates that by school this item received very positive responses. As one would expect the secondary schools, according to the parents, encourage parent involvement less than the elementary schools. The demographic separations occurred for the grades where K-6 was even more positive than expected, for race when black parents were more positive than statistically expected and for attended last year where first year parents were somewhat disappointed with the school's effort. The resident district - had no impact on the parents' responses for this item. 38 Question #10. All my questions about magnet schools were answered before I selected this magnet school for my child. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT eo~,--------------------------, 30~ ,o~ 0~ TRUE - TOTAL GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - BOOKER ffimJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 10 f:::::::::::j CARVER - PARKYIEW FALSE - GIBBS As evidenced by the responses reported in the graph, this statement received a very positive reaction. There were no differences when disaggregated by the demographic variables. This is understandable when the responses are this positive. 39 Question #11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent - me from being active in my child's school at this time. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT ~o~.-------------------------..... 301 20, TRUE GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL ~ BOOKER mIIIJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 11 1::::::::::::j Cb,RVER - F'ARKVIEW FALSE - GIBBS This is an item where the evaluator was seeking a negative type response. This type item has a dual purpose: (1) to solicit an opinion from the parent and (2) to check if the parent was indeed reading the statement or just marking the item in a positive manner. The responses satisfied the evaluator in both instances. The parents, especially black parents and parents that reside in the Pulaski county district do work and, often in their opinion, prevents them from being active in their child's school activities. The parents of students in the second year of a magnet school also expressed this opinion. Otherwise, as the graph shows, the responses were divided throughout the response options. 40 Question #12. Varios members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski county communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT eo~-------------------------~ 40t. Ot. TRUE GEN, TRUE GEN. FALSE FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL B BOOKER IIiIIIJ WILLIAMS O MANN !:::::::::::] CARVER - GI BBS - AA.RKVIEW N:2047 QUESTION 12 As the data in the graph illustrates, the by school responses were as expected, i.e. the parents of elementary students were more positive regarding this item than were the parents of secondary students. Parents in general do not view this area as a high positive aspect of the magnet schools. Parents of black students were much more positive than parents of white students and parents of students in grades 3, 5 and 6 were more positive than other grades. Otherwise, no real differences from the expected reaction. 41 Question #13. The expectations of the s.tudents were made - clear before I selected this magnet school. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT eo~,--------------------------, 20i Oi TRUE GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL - BOOKER CZ] QA.FIVER - GIBBS mmJ WILLIAMS O MANN - FARKVIEW N2047 QUESTION 13 The data for the responses to this item reveal a very high positive response. There were no differences among the parents for any of the demographic variables. The most obvious change was that parents with second-year students were somewhat negative to this item, but parents of firstyear students were very positive. 42 Question #14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT ~01,--------------------------, 301 201 1055 055 TAUE CEN. TAUE CEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL - BOOKER mmJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 14 CZJ CARVER - FARKVIEW FALSE - CIBBS The distribution of the parent responses were very similar regardless of the demographic variable investigated. However, the distribution caused some concern as it represents a parent response of a lack of knowledge regarding activities and programs at other schools. 43 Question #15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school - during parent/teacher organization meetings. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT 80$-------------------------, 60$ 40$ TAUE GEN. TAUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL B BOOKER mmJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 1e CZJ CARVER - PARKVIEW FALSE - GIBBS This distribution -reveals a high degree of acceptance among the parents for this statement. The \"this statement is true\" respondents represents all parents, but especially parents of black students, and parents of students in grades K, 1, 3, and 6. The very high responses made it difficult to find any differences for the other demographic variables. 44 Question #16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT ~0$.--------------------------. TRUE GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES SY SCHOOL - TOTAL g BOOKER milIJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 1e J::::::::::::j QA.RYER - PARKVIEW FALSE - (31888 These data reveal that the majority of parents are satisfied with the \"time\" component of the transportation category. There is some dissatisfaction, as expected, but not attributable to a particular demographic variable. Regardless of the variable investigated the distribution was approximately the same. 45 Question #17. My child's school is making a serious effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT so~...-------------------------. 40~ 20$ 0'1 TRUE GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL - BOOKER mmJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 17 IE]] CARVER - PAAKYIEW FALSE - GIBBS The data presented in this graph illustrates that the parents, as a school group, responded favorably to this item. The parents of black children were very positive in their responses, as were the parents of students in grades K, 3, 4, and 5. The parents of students in grades 7, 8, 9, and 10, although positive, were less positive than the lower grade students' parents. The resident district and the years attended had little to no impact on the responses. 46 Question #18. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT eo~,-------------------------- TRUE CEN. TRUE CEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL ~ BOOKER rnmJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 18 IZ3 CARVER - PARKVIEW FALSE - GIBBS These responses of the parents reveal some dissatisfaction in this area. The distribution was general for the demographic of school and years attended. However, the responses were somewhat different than expected for race (parents of black students were extreme in responses), district (Pulaski County parents rated higher than expected), and grade (lower grades were significantly higher and upper grades significantly lower than expected.) 47 Question #19. Community sponsored organizations and civic - centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. - SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT so~,-------------------------~ I . TRUE (3EN. TRUE GEN. FALSE FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL - BOOKEFI c::J OA-AVEFI - GI BBS mmJ WILLIAMS O MANN - PAFIKVIEW N2047 QUESTION 1Q The distribution of parent responses by school were in the true and generally true category. Parents of students at Booker and Williams were higher than expected. The same is true for the parents of students in gradesK, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8\nwhereas, the parents of students in grades 1, 2, 11 and 12 were somewhat lower than expected. The other demographic variables were about as expected. 48 Question #20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT so~-------------------------. TRUE CEN. TRUE CEN. FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL a BOOKER mmJ WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 20 EE] CAAVEA - PAAKVIEW FALSE - CIBBS The distribution of parent responses by school were higher than expected for all schools. This distribution of high positive responses was also true for the demographic variable of race, district and years attended. The variation of responses for grades K, 7, and 8 created a less than expected significant value. 49 Question #21. I was properly infomed about bus schedules, bus stop locations and expected student conduct on the bus. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT so~---------------------------, 40\\1 TAUE GEN. TAUE GEN. FALSE FALSE RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL B BOOKER mm:J WILLIAMS O MANN j::::::::::::j CARVER - GI BBS - PARKVIEW N2047 QUESTION 21 The parent responses to item number 21 reveal a very high (True) reaction to this statement. There were no significant differences found between expected and actual responses for any of the five demographic variables. All sub-groups of - parents responded very similar to the total group responses. so Question 1t1L It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT so~-------------------------, 20'1 O'I TRUE GEN. TRUE GEN. FALSE RESPO~SES BY SCHOOL - TOTAL - BOOKER Emil WILLIAMS O MANN N2047 QUESTION 22 CE] C\\RVER - PARKVIEW FALSE - GIBBS The parents of magnet school students responded very positive to this question. The great majority of responses were in the response areas ot true or generally true. This same distribution was present for all parent sub-groups. There was no significance but it was noted that Mann parents were not quite so positive, that parents of students attending for the first year were not quite so positive, that parents of black children were more positive than white parents, and very little impact by district or grade on the parent responses. 51 Question #23. I receive most of my infomation about the activities at my child's school: (please circle one) This was a different type item in-so-far that it asked for a different type response. The selection of responses were: A. from school notices sent home B. from talking with my child c. from announcements in newspapers, on radio or TV D. from talking with other parents The data is presented in two graphs with the first illustrating the total parent response and the second the response by school. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT so~.--------------------------, 70~ 60~ 00~ SCHOOL NOTIOES CHILO MEDIA OTHER ~ENTS PARENT RECEIVES INFORMATION - PARENT RESPONSES 52 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES MAGNET SCHOOL PARENTS PERCENT 100~ ,--------------------------~ QO% 60% 70~ 80~ ~Oi 40$ 30$ 20$ 10$ Oi SCHOOL - TOTAL mm) WILLIAMS N2047 QUESTION 23 CHILO MEDIA PARENTS RESPONSES BY SCHOOL - BOOKER D MANN c::J CARVER - GI BBS - PARKVIEW . Where do parents get their information about their child's magnet school? The responses confirmed the expectations inso- far as elementary students take notices home, whereas junior high and high school students do not\nand students new to the magnet school talk with their parents about their experiences, whereas, students that attended the same school last year simply bring home notices. Additionally, the white parents get more information from school notices brought home, whereas, the black parents tend to talk about school happenings with their children. A surprising few responses from the parents indicated that their information source was the media or other parents. 53 RESULTS OF STANDARDIZED TEST DATA The results of the standardized test data was received from the Little Rock School District. The demographics provided for disaggregating the data were school, grade, sex and race for the students tested. The only scores provided were the PERCENTILE RANK for the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) and PERCENT PASSING for the Minimum Performance Test (MPT). The Arkansas State Department of Education provided the state averages with like demographics for the MPT, but, could only provide state grade level averages for the MAT-6. These data prohibited the evaluator from making statistical comparisons as statistics are not accurate when using percentile scores. In fact, percentile averages are not accurate. The MRC must use professional judgment and caution in reacting to the results as presented in this report. However, in consultation with the MRC it was decided that the evaluator would present the percentile averages and present passing in graphic form and the MRC would accept the responsibility for proper interpretation. This decision was made in view of the fact that after requesting the test data for a nine-month period, this was the best data to be received. The evaluator had requested the scaled score for each student for both the MPT and the MAT~6 which would have permitted a statistical analysis. 54 Minimum Performance Test (MPT) Results The results of the magnet school students' performance on the - MPT and the state performance is presented in the accompanying graphs. The reader is reminded the data are presented as the percentage number of students that passed the exam. Gradel Reading There were 31,793 total third grade students state-wide that took the MPT in reading. There were 29,769 third grade students (94 percent) that received a passing score or higher on the reading test. The magnet school third grade students were part of the total. When the magnet school students were sorted by school the results revealed that 76 of the 81 students (94 percent) of the students at Booker\n66 of the 67 students (98 percent) at Carver\n44 of 45 students (98 - percent) at Gibbs\nand 82 of the 83 students  (99 percent) at Williams had scores at or better than the minimum passing score. Further disaggregation of the scores included grouping by sex and by race . The data shows that 95 percent of the total females in the state, grade 3, passed the state's MPT in reading. This 95 percent passing was equaled by Booker magnet school and was bettered by Gibbs (96 percent), Carver (1 00 percent) and Williams (100 percent) . The male population for the state was reported to have a 72 percent pass rate. This is compared to a 92 percent at Booker, 96 percent at Williams, 97 percent at Carver and 100 percent at Gibbs. 55 (.J1 O'I MINIMUM .PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 3 READING PERCENT PASSING 110 ,--------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS - BOOKER ~ CARVER !:Ittl GIBBS m WILLIAMS 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY RACE WHITE E~.:::3 ST,,A JE The black student group had a pass rate for grade 3 reading of 85 percent\nwhereas, Booker black students recorded an 88 percent pass rate, Carver black students a 97 percent pass rate and both Gibbs and Williams a 100 percent pass rate. The white student group had a pass rate of 96 percent statewide for grade 3 reading. The magnet school group of white students recorded pass rates of Booker 100 percent, carver 100 percent, Gibbs 97 percent and Williams 97 percent. Further disaggregation of the grade 3 reading results revealed that the black females at Carver, Gibbs and Williams had a 100 percent pass rate\nthe black males at both Gibbs and Williams had a 100 percent pass rate\nthe white female.s at Booker, Carver and Williams had a 100 percent pass rate\nand the white males at Booker, Carver and Gibbs had 100 percent pass rate. When the systat statistical computer program was used to compute differences between percent proportions, no significance was found between the state percent passing rate and any of the magnet schools percent passing rate. However, a significant difference was found between the black students state-wide and magnet school black students at Carver, Gibbs and Williams. No significant difference was found for the other variables._ 57 U1 co MINIMUM PERFORMANCE-TEST GRADE 3 READING PERCENT PASSING 110 ,...------------------------. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS Ill BOOKER ~ CARVER [3IT] GIBBS Ill WILLIAMS 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX Gradel Math The percentage of students taking and passing the grade 3 mathematics section of the MPT was similar to the reading percentages. Ninety-five percent (30,089 of 31,787) of the third graders state-wide received a passing score on this section of the MPT. When the four elementary magnet schools were disaggregated the results revealed that Booker had a pass rate of 96 percent, Carver a pass rate of 100 percent and Gibbs and Williams a pass rate of 98 percent. The state passing rate for female third graders was also 95 percent\nwhereas for the magnet schools for the like group it was 98 percent for Booker\n100 percent for Carver\n96 pertent for Gibbs and 98 percent for Williams. The male passing rate for all third grade students was 97 percent. Both Carver and Gibbs had 100 percent of the students passing the math section of the MPT and Booker and Williams were very close to that percent. State-wide the black students had a pass rate of 88 percent for mathematics at the grade three level. Every magnet school had a higher pass rate with Carver, Gibbs and Williams at 100 percent and Booker with a 93 percent pass rate. The white students, for the state, had a pass rate of 97 percent with Booker, Ca~ver and Gibbs reporting an equal or better pass rate. Williams had a competitive 95 percent. Further sorting of the magnet schools third grade class revealed that the black females and black males at Carver, Gibbs and Williams had a 100 percent pass rate\nwhereas, the - white females at Booker and Carver and the white males at Booker, Carver and Gibbs had a 100 percent pass rate. 59 MINIMUM PERFORMANCE .. TEST GRADE 3 MATH PERCENT PASSI NG 110 .------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK WHITE AVERAG.ES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS .. BOOKER ~ CARVER l:?\\d GIBBS - WILLIAMS ~ STATE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY RICE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST ' GRADE 3 MATH PERCENT PASSING 110 ..-------------------------. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS Ill BOOKER ~ CARVER l -f? I GIBBS .. WILLIAMS 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX The statistical analysis program systat yielded no significant differences between proportions of passing for - the state rate and the rate for any of the magnet schools. The significant differences did occur in relation to mathematics performance at Carver and Willia.ms where the magnet black students had a significantly higher percent passing rate than the state rate. Grade Q Reading The percent passing for the state-wide sixth grade population was 94 (27,425 of 29,330). All four magnet schools exceeded this percent with Booker with 97 percent, Carver with 99 percent, Gibbs with 100 percent and Willia.ms with 99 percent passing. When the group was disaggreated by sex the females, statewide recorded a percent passing rate of 95. Likewise, the female population of the magnet schools had a percent passing rate as follows: Booker 99 percent\nCarver 100 percent\nGibbs 100 percent and Williams 97 percent. The total male population had a percent passing rate of 92. The like group in the magnet schools recorded a percent passing rate as follows: Williams and Gibbs 100 percent\nCarver 97 percent and Booker 95 percent. The sorting by race revealed that the black population had a state-wide passing rate of 84 percent. The magnet school black students performed at a passing rate of 100 percent for both Williams and Gibbs\n97 percent for carver and 95 percent for Booker. The white population state-wide recorded a percent passing rate of 96. The results for the magnet schools revealed that both Gibbs and Carver had a 100 percent 62 O'I w MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 6 READING PERCENT PASSING 110 .-----------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK WHITE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS - BOOKER ~ CARVER LtI=I GIBBS - WILLIAMS I STATE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY RICE passing\nBooker a 99 percent passing and Williams a 97 percent passing. Further disaggregation was possible for the magnet schools. This presented data for the race and sex combined. The black females of the magnet school population recorded percent passing as follows: Carver, Gibbs and Williams 100 percent\nBooker 97 percent. The white female group had the following percent passing rate: Booker, Carver and Gibbs 100 percent\nWilliams 92 percent. As stated previously, both Williams and Gibbs had 100 percent passing fo~ both black and white males\nwhereas, Booker had 92 percent passing for black males and 97 percent passing for white males. Carver reported a passing rate for black males of 94 percent and 100 percent for white males. The statistical analysis of differences between two proportions did not yield a significant difference between the state's percent passing and any of the four magnet schools. The significant differences were found for the disaggregated variables and are listed as follows: The black students in all four magnet schools had a significantly higher proportion of students passing the MPT than did the state's black students as a population. Grade 6 Math Ninety-three percent of the sixth grade population state-wide performed at the minimum level required for passing. The magnet schools and the respective percent passing were as follows: Booker 97 percent (137 of 141)\nCarver 100 percent (69 of 69)\nGibbs 100 percent (48 of 48)\nand Williams 99 percent (66 of 67). 64 O'I u, MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 6 READING PERCENT PASSING 110 .-------------------------. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS .. BOOKER ~ CARVER t'\u0026lt;? I GIBBS 1111 WILLIAMS 1989 DATA BY Rf.CE/SEX O'I O'I MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 6 MATH PERCENT PASSING 110 .--------~-------------------. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK WHITE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS - BOOKER ~ CARVER HF?) GIBBS - WILLIAMS  STATE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY R.ACE The breakout by sex revealed that 95 percent of the total females and 92 percent of the total males recorded a minimum passing score or higher on the MPT. The magnet schools and the percent passing rate for females and males respectively were as follows: Booker 99 percent and 95 percent\nCarver 100 percent and 100 percent\nGibbs 100 percent and 100 percent\nand Williams 100 percent and 97 percent. The group was then sorted to reveal the percent passing by race. The state-wide rate was 86 percent passing for blacks and 95 percent passing for whites. For the magnet schools the rate passing for black and white respectively were as follows: Booker 93 percent and 100 percent\nCarver 100 percent and 100 percent\nGibbs 100 percent and 100 percent\nand Williams 100 percent and 97 percent. Additional sorting provided data for sex by race for the four magnet schools. These data were as follows: Booker black females 97 percent passing, black males 88 percent passing, white females and white males 100 percent passing\ncarver black females, white females, black males, white males all 100 percent passing\nGibbs black females, black males, white females, white males all 100 percent passing\nand Williams white males 94 percent passing and all others, white females, black females and black males 100 percent passing. The statistical analysis of the difference between proportions yielded a significant difference between Carver's percent passing in math and the state's percent passing in math. Further analysis revealed the black students at Carver, Gibbs and Williams had a significantly higher percent passing rate than did the state as a population. 67 Grade Language Arts The language arts section of the MPT .appeared to be more difficult for the students. The percent passing for the total state was 88 percent. The magnet school students also found this test somewhat more difficult. Ninety-four percent of the Booker sixth graders met or exceeded the required minimum score\nwhereas, 93 percent of Carver students\n83 percent of Gibbs students and 96 percent of Williams students entered a minimum or better score. When disaggregated by sex the state-wide percent passing for females was 91 percent and for males 85 percent. The percent passing for magnet schools for females and males respectively was as follows: Booker 98 percent and 90 percent\nCarver 94 percent and 92 percent\nGibbs 88 percent and 78 percent\nand - Williams 97 percent and 94 percent. The ''by race\" breakout for the state was 76 percent of the black students and 92 percent of the white students recorded a score that met or exceeded .the state requirements. The magnet schools and the percent passing for black students and white students respectively were as follows: Booker 90 percent and 97 percent\nCarver 88 percent and 97 percent\nGibbs 63 percent and 96 percent\nand Williams 97 percent and 93 percent. Further sorting by combining race and sex revealed percent passing for the magnet schools for black females, black males, white females and white males. The specific values for the magnet school and the disaggregate group are as - follows: Booker black females 94 percent, black males 85 percent, white females 100 percent, and white males 94 69 -.J 0 MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST .. GRADE 6 LANGUAGE ARTS PERCENT PASSING 110 ..-------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FFMALE MALE BLACK ' WHITE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS .. BOOKER ~ CARVER l/thl GIBBS - WILLIAMS  STATE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY R/tCE -..J ...... MINIMUM PERFORMANCE-TEST ' GRADE 6 LANGUAGE ARTS 110 P_ER_CE_NT _PAS_SIN_G _______________ __, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS .. BOOKER ~ CARVER l\u0026gt;tfl GIBBS .. WILLIAMS 1989 DATA BY RfiCE/SEX percent passing\nCarver black females 94 percent, black males 81 percent, white females 93 percent and white males 100 - percent passing\nGibbs black females 78 percent, black males 50 percent, white females 93 percent and white males 100 percent passing\nWilliams black females 100 percent, black males 92 percent, white females 92 percent and white males 94 percent passing. The statistical analysis of the difference between two proportions yielded a significant difference between both Booker and Williams when comparing percent passing rates with the state's passing rate. In additional analysis it was noted that the females at Booker and black students at Booker and Williams recorded a significantly higher percent passing rate than did the state as a population. Grade Science The state distribution of scores for grade six on the science component of the MPT revealed that 25,631 of the 29,326 students that took the test (87 percent) received a score equal to or greater than that required to pass the test. When the magnet school students were disaggregated from the total the sub-group scores revealed that 125 of 141 (89 percent) of the students at Booker magnet met or exceeded these same requirements and 61 of 69 students (88 percent) at Carver met or exceeded these requirements. Other magnet schools at Gibbs 40 of 48 (83 percent) and Williams 54 of 67 (81 percent) also met or exceeded these requirements. When the total scores were sorted by sex the results revealed that the state passing rate for females was 86 percent and for males was 89 percent. The magnet school and the respective passing rates for females and males respectively 72 -..J w MINIMUM PERFORMANCE- TEST GRADE 6 SCIENCE PERCENT PASSING 110 .------------ ------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK  WHITE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS - BOOKER ~ CARVER [ ftJ GIBBS - WILLIAMS ~ STATE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY RICE were as follows: Booker 90 percent and 87 percent\ncarver 84 percent and 92 percent\nGibbs 84 percent and 82 percent\nand - Williams 71 percent and 91 percent. When sub-grouped by race the state's percent passing rate was 69 percent for the black population and 93 percent for the white population. The results for the magnet schools black students revealed that Booker (80 percent) and carver (88 percent) exceeded the state percent passing\nwhereas, Gibbs (68 percent) and Williams (69 percent) were approximately the same as the state's percent passing. The results for the magnet schools white students revealed that Booker (95 percent) was higher than the state percent passing, Carver-. (89 percent) was lower than the state percent passing and Gibbs and Williams were equal to the state percent passing for grade 6 science. Additional disaggregation of the magnet school results for race and sex provided data that shows Carver's black females (94 percent) out performed the other magnets black females on percent passing the MPT. Williams' black males (85 percent passing) was the best of the magnets for that sub-group and Booker's white females group (96 percent) led all magnet elementary schools for that sub-group. The white male subgroup was all quite high with Carver and Gibbs both at 100 percent passing, and Booker and Williams both at 94 percent passing. The statistical analysis of the difference between two proportions failed to identify any significant differences between the state passing rate and the individual magnet school population. The state's total female students had a 74 -.J (.J1 MINIMUM PERFORMANCE  TEST GRADE 6 SCIENCE PERCENT PASSING 110 .-------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS Ill BOOKER ~ CARVER FL:Z7:Ti::JI GIBBS 1111 WILLIAMS 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX significantly higher percent passing rate than the percent passing at Williams magnet. The black students at Carver had a significantly higher passing rate in science than the state's black students. Grade Social Studies The percent passing rate for grade 6 social studies statewide was 87 percent. The magnet schools all exceeded the state percent with Booker 94 percent passing, Williams 93 percent passing, Carver 90 percent passing and Gibbs with 88 percent passing. When subdivided by sex the state percent passing rate was 87 percent for females and 86 percent for males. The magnet . school and the percent passing for females and males respectively were as follows: Booker 95 percent and 92 percent\nCarver 88 percent and 92 percent\nGibbs 88 percent and 87 percent\nand Williams 94 percent and 91 percent. The groups disaggregated by race yielded a percent passing rate for the state's black students of 68 percent and for the state's white students of 92 percent. For the magnet schools the school and the percent passing rate for black students and white students respectively were as follows: Booker 86 percent and 99 percent\nCarver 88 percent and 92 percent\nGibbs 74 percent and 96 percent\nand Williams 94 percent and 90 percent. Additional sorting for the magnet schools yielded results for race and sex. The black females that scored the highest percent passing rate was Williams (96 percent passing) - closely followed by Carver (94 percent passing). 76 --.J --.J e . MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 6 SOCIAL STUDIES PERCENT PASSING 110 .------------------------. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK  WHITE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS - BOOKER ~ CARVER h':tJ GIBBS - WILLIAMS  STATE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY RICE -.J co MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 6 SOCIAL STUDIES PERCENT PASSI NG 110 ,---------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE AVERAGES OF MAGNET SCHOOLS .. BOOKER ~ CARVER l\\'? I GIBBS 11111 WILLIAMS 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX The pace setter for the black male sub-group was clearly Williams with a 92 percent passing rate. The best school for - the white females was Booker with 98 percent passing, however, both Gibbs (93 percent) and Williams (92 percent) had over 90 percent passing. The white male was the most consistent performers in all magnet schools in social studies i.e., Booker 100 percent, Carver 100 percent, Gibbs 100 percent and Williams 88 percent passing. The statistical analysis of the difference between two proportions found no significant difference between the magnet students' percent passing rate in social studies and the state population performance. Additional analysis did yield a significant difference between Williams and the state population regarding black student's percent passing rates. Grade~ Reading The percent passing rate for the state population of eighth graders was 96 percent. The magnet school Mann recorded the exact same percent. The population for the state was 28,727 students and for Mann was 269 students. The percent passing for Mann grade 8 females was two percentage points more than the state passing rate, i.e., 99- 97. The males at Mann had a 93 percent passing, whereas, the state percent passing rate was 95 percent. When disaggregated by race the results revealed that the state's black students had a 90 percent passing rate and Mann's black students recorded a 94 percent passing rate. The state's white students performed at a 98 percent passing rate and the Mann white students performed at a 98 percent passing rate. 79 co 0 MINIMUM PERFORMANCE_ TEST .. GRADE 8 READING PERCENT PASSI NG 110 ,-------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK MAGNET SCHOOLS 1111 HORACE MANN  STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY RICE WHITE 00 I--' MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 8 READING PERCENT PASSING 110 ,------------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0'--- BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE MAGNET SCHOOLS Ill HORACE MANN ~ STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX Additional sorting by sex and race revealed that Mann's magnet school students recorded a higher percentage pass rate than did the overall state population of eighth grade students. The sub-group and the percent passing for Mann and the state total respectively were as follows: Black females 98 percent, 92 percent\nblack males 89 percent, 87 percent\nwhite females 100 percent, 98 percent\nand white males 98 percent, 97 percent. The statistical analysis of the differences between two proportions revealed no significant differences existed between the 8th grade population at Mann magnet school and the state as an eighth grade unit. This was also true i.e., no significant difference for any of the disaggregated subgroups. Grade~ Math The state percent passing rate for grade eight mathematics was reported at 97 percent. The Mann magnet school reported a percent passing rate of 96 percent. When disaggregated by sex and race the percent passing varied very little. The female rate for the state was 97 percent passing and the same percent (97 percent) passing was recorded for Mann magnet. The males recorded a state rate of 96 percent pass~ng and Mann recorded a 94 percent passing. The by race sorting revealed that both the state and Mann recorded 98 percent passing rate for the white students. The black students performed at a 94 percent passing rate at Mann and the state reported a 93 percent passing rate. 82 (X) w MINIMUM PERFORMANCE -TEST GRADE 8 MATH PERCENT PASSI NG 110 ~-----------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK MAGNET SCHOOLS 1111 HORACE MANN ~ STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY RJICE WHITE 00 ~ MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 8 MATH PEnCENT PASSING 110 ,----------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o~- BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE MAGNET SCHOOLS .. HORACE MANN ~ STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY R/0:/SEX Further analysis of the disaggregated data was conducted for the combination of race and sex. The black females performed at a 94 percent passing rate at the state level and a 96 percent passing rate at Mann junior high. The black males recorded a 90 percent passing rate at Mann magnet and a 92 percent passing rate at the state level. The white females and the white males performed at about identical rates. The sub-group and the percent passing for Mann magnet and the state respectively were white females 98 percent, 98 percent and white males 98 percent, 97 percent. The statistical analysis of differences between proportions failed to provide a significant difference for any group or sub-group. Grade~ Language Arts The state percent passing rate for the grade 8 language arts section of the MPT was 92 percent. The percent passing for Mann magnet was also 92 percent. When the two groups were sorted by sex and race the results varied very little. The female population recorded the same percent passing (97) for both groups. The male population for the state recorded a percent passing of 96 and the Mann magnet school males recorded a 94 percent passing. The group and the percent passing for black students and white students respectively were as follows: Mann 99, 87 an\" d state 94, 87. Further disaggregation of the data provided results for sex by race for both the state and for Mann magnet school. The sub-group and the percent passing for the state and Mann respectively were as follows: black females 92, 93\nblack males 63, 81\nwhite females 97, 100\nand white males 91, 98. 85 00 en MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 8 LANGUAGE ARTS PERCENT PASSING 110 .---------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK MAGNET SCHOOLS .. HORACE MANN  STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY Rf.CE WHITE (X) -..J MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 8 LANGUAGE ARTS PERCENT PASSING 110 .--------------- ------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o~ BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE MAGNET SCHOOLS .. HORACE MANN ~ STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX The statistical analysis for difference between two proportions was applied to the data for grade 8 language arts. The only comparison that yielded a significant difference was for the white students where Mann magnet students had a significantly higher percent passing than the state's white students as a population. Grade~ Science The state population for grade 8 in the science area test of the MPT had a percent passing rate of 88 percent. The total Mann eighth grade performed at the 78 percent level. When disaggregated by sex and by race the results yielded data for females, males, black race and white race. The . analysis revealed that the females percent passing for the state group was 85 and was 77 for the Mann females. The state's male population had a passing rate of 91 percent, whereas, Mann's male population performed at a 77 percent passing rate. The breakouts of the present passing by race and group were as follows: Mann magnet black 66 percent passing, white 95 percent passing\nstate population of black students 72 percent passing\nwhite students 93 percent passing. Additional sorting yielded the following results for both the state subgroup and the magnet subgroup: black female, state percent passing 69, Mann percent passing 67\nwhite female, state percent passing 90, Mann percent passing 93\nblack male, state percent passing 75, Mann percent passing 66\nwhite male, state percent passing 95, Mann percent passing 98. 88 00 \\D MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 8 SCIENCE PERCENT PASSI NG 110~-------------------. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEM.ALE MALE BLACK MAGNET SCHOOLS .. HORACE MANN  STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY SEX: BY Rf.CE WHITE \\0 0 MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 8 SCIENCE PERCENT PASSI NG 110 .------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o~- BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE MAGNET SCHOOLS 111111 HORACE MANN ~ STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX The statistical analysis yielded significant differences for several group comparisons. The state's eighth graders, the state's male population, and the state's female population had a significantly higher percent passing rate than Mann magnet school. Further analysis of the disaggregated scores failed to yield more significant differences. Grade~ Social Studies The percent passing for the state's eighth graders in the social studies area was 89 percent. The Mann magnet school recorded an 81 percent passing rate. The total groups were disaggregated by sex and by race. The results were as follows when sorting by sex: females, state rate 88 perceht passing, Mann 81 percent passing\nmales, state rate 91 percent passing, Mann 80 percent passing. The 4 percent passing rate for the breakouts by race were as follows: black race, state 82, Mann 72\nwhite race, state 92, Mann 93. Further sorting yielded subgroups of sex by race. The results for the black females were that the state had an 81 percent passing rate and Mann magnet had a 76 percent passing rate. Also, the black males had a state-wide passing rate of 82 percent and Mann magnet had a passing rate of 68 percent. The state's white females performed at a passing rate of 90 percent which was almost equal to Mann's white females rate of 89 percent. The white males at Mann magnet performed at a rate of passing of 98 percent while the state's percent passing for the like group was 93. 91 I.O N MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST ' GRADE 8 SOCIAL STUDIES PERCENT PASSI NG 110 ....------------------------, 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TOTAL FEMALE MALE BLACK MAGNET SCHOOLS - HORACE MANN  STATE AVERAGE 1989 DAfA BY SEX: BY RICE WHITE I.D w MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE 8 SOCIAL STUDIES PERCENT PASSING 110~-------------------~ 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ----- BLACK FEMALE BLACK MALE WHITE FEMALE WHITE MALE MAGNET SCHOOLS 1111 HORACE MANN ~ STATE AVERAGE 1989 DATA BY RICE/SEX The statistical analysis yielded several significant differences between the two groups. The state group of eighth graders out-performed the Mann magnet group on the total and with both sexes. Additionally, the black race as a group and the black males as a group out-performed the Mann magnet groups of like students. 94 Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) The Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) 1989 scores for the - magnet schools were used for this report. It is of significance, once more, to remind the reader that these scores are reported in percentile rank (PR) scores for the students and for the school. The summary of averages computed for the disaggregated groups are averages of percentile ranks and do not have statistical significance. These graphics are only for information to the Magnet Review Committee and the magnet school administration. Grade 1 MAT-6 Composite The composite scores for the grade 4 of the magnet schools and for the state area population are presented here. The data, also presented in graphs, reveal that an average of - percentile ranks on the MAT-6 places the magnet schools on an approximate equal with the state percentile rank (PR). The state's PR for reading 62 and the magnet schools average PR was 61. This continued to be displayed when the other test components were graphed. The test content and the state's PR and the magnet school's average PR respectively were presented as follows: Mathematics, state PR=70, magnet school a . erage PR=72\nLanguage Arts, state PR=66, magnet school average PR=67\nthe basic battery of reading, mathematics and language arts, state's PR=67, magnet school average PR=68\nscience, state PR=68, magnet school average PR=67\nand social studies, state PR=68, magnet school average PR=70. Further sorting of the four magnet elementary schools population allowed for more data presentations. For example, the group population MAT-6 PR's were sorted and averaged by 95 I.O O'\\ 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PERCENTILE RD MAT-6 SUMMARY , GRADE 4 MA LA BB SC MAT -6 SUB-TESTS - MAGNET AVERAGE ~ STATE AVERAGE 1989 QA5S NER.AGE ss sex the results appear as follows: reading, female PR=64, male PR=57\nmath, female PR=74, male PR=71\nlanguage arts female PR=72, male PR=63\nbasic battery, female PR=71, male PR=65\nscience, female PR=67, male PR=68\nand social studies, female PR=72, male PR=69. Additional sorting allowed the data for the magnet schools to be viewed by race. This disaggregation revealed that the white students had a considerably higher average PR than did the black students, i.e., for reading, white PR=72, black PR=SO and for science, white PR=78, black PR=57. It was of interest to the evaluator that, however fragile the data, the smallest difference in average PR's between the races were in language arts. When the swnmary PR's were grouped by both sex and race for grade four of the four elementary schools, the results appeared somewhat the same. The females' average PR for content, white and black respectively were as follows: reading, white PR=76, black PR=54\nmathematics, white PR=84, black PR=65\nlanguage arts, white PR=77, black PR=66\nbasic battery, white PR=81, black PR=61\nscience, white PR=80, black PR=SS\nand social studies, white PR=83, black PR=61. Similar results were illustrated when the black and white males were compared. The highest PR averages for the black males were in the content areas of math, science and social studies\nwhereas, the highest average PR's for white males, also, were math, science and social studies. 97 I.O 00 PERCENTILE MAT-6 SUMMARY GRADE 4 100 ,--------------------------. 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS Ill FEMALE ~ MALE 1989 M/rGNET SCHOOLS BY S X I.O I.O PERCENTILE MAT-6 SUMMARY GRADE 4 100 ~-----------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA 1989 Mt-GNET SCHOOLS BY RICE LA BB MAT -6 SUB-TESTS .. WHITE ~ BLACK SC ss I-' 0 0 MAT -6 SUMMARY GRADE 4: FEMALE BY RACE PERCENTILE 100 .-------------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS Ill WHITE FEMALE ~ BLACK FEMALE 1989 DATA ALL Mf.GNET SCHOOLS I-' 0 I-' MAT -6 SUMMARY .. GRADE 4: MALE BY RACE PERCENTILE 100 r----------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS .. WHITE MALE ~ BLACK MALE 1989 DATA ALL MPGNET Sa-tOOLS Grade i MAT-6, QY School The total percentile rank for each of the magnet schools in the content areas will be presented in graphic form for better understanding by the reader. The total reading PR for Carver and Gibbs was 61 with Williams the highest total reading PR=72 and Booker the lowest at PR=SO. The reader must bear in mind that percentile rank, by definition, means that this percent of scores on a national norm were equal to, or less, than the score attained by this particular group. The data in the graphic reveals .that Williams magnet continued to be the pace setter for the other content areas and Booker, al~hough consistently scoring higher than 50 percent of the schools nation-wide, revealed the lowest PR except in social studies. Additional graphs are presented in Appendix c. These graphs present by school illustrations of data for the disaggregated groups. Grade 1 MAT-6 The data for grade 7 were obtained from Horace Mann Junior High School. The composite average for Mann magnet school and the state composite for the state's seventh grade appears very close. The largest difference between the PR's was in reading (Mann's PR=60, state's PR=SS) and in language arts (Mann's PR=67, state's PR=62). The highest PR for Mann was in language arts, whereas, the highest PR for the state as a group was in science. The only content area where the state's PR was higher than the magnet school was mathematics. It should be noted that the majority of PR's for the state and for Mann were about the PR=60. 102 ...... 0 (.\nJ MAT-6 SUMMARY PERCENTILE 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 RD MA - BOOKER 1989 CLASS AVERAGE GRADE 4 LA 88 MAT -6 SUB-TESTS r~ITIT1 CARVER ~ GIBBS SC ss ~ WILLIAMS I-' 0 ~ PERCENTILE 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 RD 1009 U..ASS NERN3E MAT -6 SUMMARY GRADE 7 MA LA BB SC MAT -6 SUB- TESTS Ill MAGNET AVERAGE ~ STATE AVERAGE ss When the data were sorted by race, the PR's revealed a similar condition as existed in the elementary schools. The white students consistently scored higher than the black students within the magnet school. These data revealed that the largest differences in average PR's were reading and mathematics. The highest PR for the black students was in the language arts content area and the lowest was in the area of math. The white students scored higher, as a group, in science and they also recorded their lowest PR in mathematics. When the data were disaggregated by sex, the PR's were somewhat different than for the elementary schools. With the exception of language arts the males' average PR was higher than their female counterparts. The highest male PR was in science (PR=70) and the highest female PR was in language arts (PR=69). The lowest average PR for both was in mathematics. When both race and sex was used for sorting the results revealed that the white females had consistently higher average PR's than did the black females. However, the highest average PR for both female groups was language arts and the lowest for both groups was mathematics. For the male population, the ~hite males had the highest average PR for each content area. In contrast with the females, the white males' highest PR was in science, but, like the females, the black males' highest PR was in language arts. The lowest PR for the black males was, again, like the females, in mathematics. The lowest PR for the white males was in language arts. 105 ..... 0 O'I PERCENTILE MAT -6 SUMMARY GRADE 7 100 ~------------------------ 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA 1989 Mf.GN T SCHOOLS BY RICE LA BB MAT -6 SUB-TESTS Ill WHITE ~ BLACK SC ss I-' 0 --.J PERCENTILE MAT-6 SUMMARY GRADE 7 100 .---------------------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA 1989 MAGNET SCHOOLS BY SEX LA BB MAT -6 SUB-TESTS - FEMALE ~ MALE SC ss f--' 0 (X) MAT -6 SUMMARY GRADE 7: FEMALE BY RACE PERCENTILE 100 .------------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC MAT -6 SUB-TESTS .. WHITE FEMALE ~ BLACK FEMALE 1989 DATA ALL MI-GNET SCHOOLS ss f--' 0 I.O MAT -6 SUMMARY  GRADE 7: MALE BY RACE PERCENTILE 100 ~---------------------. 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS Ill WHITE MALE ~ BLACK MALE 1989 DATA ALL M.AGNET SCHOOLS Grade lQ MAT-6 The data for the sophomore class at Parkview High school was - collected for the study. The magnet school students' performance when compared to the state average, was close to the 50th percentile rank in all content areas. The content area of the highest PR for both the magnet school (PR=58) and the state (PR=61) was language arts. The content area with the lowest PR for Parkview sophomores was math (PR=47) and for the state sophomores was reading (PR=Sl). The data was sorted by race for additional analysis. These results reveal that the white group of sophomores averaged between PR=56 (mathematics) and PR=64 (language arts). Likewise, the black group of sophomores averaged between PR=40 (social studies) and PR=54 (language arts). The greatest difference between the groups' performance was in - social studies where the white race group had a PR=61 and the black race group had a PR=40. Additional sorting by sex produced a much closer comparison. The male group of sophomores had a high PR average of 56 in science and a low PR average of 48 in mathematics. The female group of sophomores had a high PR average of 60 in language arts and a low PR average of 46 in mathematics. The largest difference in the PR's was in the content area of science, i.e., male PR=56, female PR=47. When sorted by race and sex the data revealed that the white females and black females had highest PR's in the content area of language arts. The lowest PR for the white female group was in mathematics (PR=57), whereas, the lowest PR for the black female group was social studies (PR-38). 110 ..... ..... ..... 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PERCENTILE RD MAT -6 SUMMARY GRADE 10 MA LA 88 SC MAT -6 SUB-TESTS I 19119 CLASS NERl'GE - MAGNET AVERAGE ~ STATE AVERAGE ss ...... ...... l'v PERCENTILE MAT-6 SUMMARY GRADE 10 100 ------------------------ 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS - WHITE ~ BLACK 1009 M/tGNET SQ-fOOLS BY RNA: PERCENTILE MAT-6 SUMMARY GRADE 10 100 .--------------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS 1111 FEMALE ~ MALE 1989 MAGNET SCHOOLS BY SEX MAT -6 SUMMARY  .. GRADE 10: FEMALE BY RACE PERCENTILE 100------------------------. 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA 88 SC ss MAT-6 SUB-TESTS .. WHITE FEMALE ~ BLACK FEMALE 1989 DATA ALL M/tGNET SCHOOLS The black male group's highest average PR was in the content area of language arts (PR=52) and the wl:lite male group's - highest average PR was in science (PR=68). The lowest PR average for the black males and white males respectively was reading (PR=42) and mathematics (PR=54). 115 I-' I-' CTI MAT -6 SUMMARY GRADE 10: MALE BY RACE PERCENTILE 100 .----------------------. 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS Ill WHITE MALE ~ BLACK MALE 1989 DAf A ALL Mf.GN T SCHOOLS SUMMARY STATEMENT Based on the findings of the study and the insight gained from the evaluation team's interaction with other educators, the following statements appear valid. 1. The return rate of 60 percent on the parent survey is sufficient to warrant consideration of the responses. 2. There is no difference in the return rate of parents based on race or resident district. 3. The majority of parents responding had students attending a magnet school for the second year, especially parents of elementary students. 4. 5. A higher proportion of black students are attending a magnet school for the second year than students of other races. This was true by school except for Gibbs elementary. The efforts of the MRC regarding student recruitment have been rewarded. The parents are very positive of recruitment procedures. 6. Transportation as a category was acceptable to the parents\nhowever, there is still some concern about \"student time on bus,\" \"bus drivers\" and \"transportation information.\" 7. The parents of magnet school students indicate there is a continued need for efforts by the MRC and the magnet school administration to improve the area of parent and community involvement. 117 8. 9. Working parents, especially parents of black children, have a difficult time becoming involved in school activities. Elementary students take school notices home to parents and parents read them for information about school activities, whereas, secondary students tend to just \"tell\" their parents about school activities. 10. Parents of black students \"talk with their child\" about school more than parents of white students. 11. The black students in grade 3 will perform better on both sections (reading and math) of the Minimum Performance Test (MPT) than the state average passing rate. 12. The black students in grade 6 will perform better on the reading and math tests of the MPT than the state average passing rate, and perform as well or better in the areas of language arts, science and social studies. 13. The magnet schools' eighth grade students do not perform as well as the state average passing rate on the MPT content area tests of science and social studies. 14. Although the magnet school grade 4 students have a comparable composite percentile rank on the MAT-6 as the state popul~tion of grade 4 students, the black magnet school students do not perform as well as their white peers. 118 15. Although the magnet school's sev.enth grade students have a comparable composite percentile rank on the MAT-6 as the state population of seventh grade students, the black students of the magnet school do not perform as well as their white peers. 16. The state composite percentile rank for the MAT-6 was, although comparable, higher than the composite percentile rank for the grade 10 magnet students in all content areas. The white students will perform at a higher level than their black peers on this particular test. 17. The magnet school students perform better, as measured by the MPT and the MAT-6, in the content areas of reading and math\nwhereas, the weakest area is science. 18. The least difference in performance by the race variable was in the content area of language arts. 119 APPENDIX A 120 - - MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION Parent Form: p-89 Since your name or your child's name will not appear anywhere on this form, we ask that you please answer all questions openly and honestly. Information gathered from parents can and will make a difference. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION Questions 1-5 ask for general information: 1. Child's School _ M_a_,g._n_e_t_S_ch_o_o_l_P_a_re_n_t_s_-_N_=_20_4_7_ 2. Child's Grade _ _ 3. Child's Race: Black __ _ White --- Other --- 4. Do you live in: Little Rock ____ _ North Little Rock ____ Pulaski County District ___ _ 5. Did your child attend this school last year? Yes __ _ No __ _ =================---------------------------------------=-------------- Directions: Read each of the statements very carefully and indicate your response to each one using the following scale: Mark Column T if you think the statement is TRUE GT if you think the statement is GENERALLY TRUE GF if you think the statement is GENERALLY FALSE F if you think the statement is FALSE PLEASE PUT AN (X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR CHOICE T GT GF F MO 6. I attend school programs and activities on a las 1 lss9 11641 155 I 1a] regular basis. 7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. 1731 I 796 I 123 I 102 I 2951 8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and 1275 Ina I 56812451 39 programs in the magnet schools. 9. The school actively encourages parent I 12061643 I u6 I s 1 I 11 involvement. 10. All of my questions about magnet schools were 1943 1797 116711331 7 answered before I selected this school for my child. 121 11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 17. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. 18. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. 19. Community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. 23. I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: (please circle one) T GT GF F MO 1 3 70 1696 1444 I s 17 I 20 1 144319941318 Isa I 212 j 11129 1643 1163 I 89 I 23 I I 32ol 626lss7 ls16 I 2s I l10os I683I192 I 112 I ss I I 6s5l 6o7l166 l24s 13411 19661 8281148 173 132 I I 3741 8451278 121713331 I 92l I 8171161 58 I 90 I 111171 5921196 I 120 I 22 111941438 184 l115l216I 110251786 I 141 1 s 7 1 38 I A. from school notices sent home 1229 B. from talking with my child 539 c. from announcements in newspapers, on radio or TV 10 D. from talking with other parents 31 E. Missing Data 238 122 APPENDIX B 123 - - MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION Parent Form: p-89 Since your name or your child's name will not appear anywhere on this form, we ask that you please answer all questions openly and honestly. Information gathered from parents can and will make a difference. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION Questions 1-5 ask for general information: 1. Child s School Booker Magnet N=483 2. Child's Grade _ _ 3. Child's Race: Black___ White _ _ Other --- 4. Do you live in: Little Rock ____ _ North Little Rock ____ Pulaski County District ___ _ 5. Did your child attend this school last year? Yes __ _ No __ _ Directions: Read each of the statements very carefully and indicate your response to each one using the following scale: Mark Column T if you think the statement is TRUE GT if you think the statement is GENERALLY TRUE GF if you think the statement is GENERALLY FALSE F if you think the statement is FALSE PLEASE PUT AN (X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR CHOICE T GT GF F MO 6. I attend school programs and activities on a 1173 223, 43 39 5 I regular basis. 7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. I 178 I 199 I 26 I 24 56 I 8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and ls9 1149168 I l I 198 9 programs in the magnet schools. 9. The school actively encourages parent l2s41l871 291 11! 2 l involvement. 10. All of my questions about magnet schools were 1200 1198 I 431 4 l I l answered before I selected this school for my child. 124 . 11. -12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. -18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. T GT GF My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory. with me. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: {please circle one) I 119 I 241 I I 217 I 1791 185 I 152 I 12561 1541 1 182 1 1361 I 223 I 191 I I 105 I 185 I I 3271 118 I I 233I 1491 I 290 I 105 I I 224 I 1971 A. from school notices sent home 319 B. from talking with my child 110 c. from announcements in newspapers, on radio or TV D. from talking with other parents E. Missing Data 125 0 8 46 60 53 1161 42 35 40 77 161 58 30 34 F MO 21 I 42 l 25 9 1241 6 22 9 67 63 26 I 3 I 56 I 60 I 14 8 38 5 28 30 22 6 - - MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION Parent Form: p-89 Since your name or your child's name will not appear anywhere on this form, we ask that you please answer all questionsopenly and honestly. Information gathered from parents can and will make a difference. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION Questions 1-5 ask for general information: 1. Child's School_ __c _a_r_v_e_r_Ma_g_n_e_t _N= _3_5_5_ ___ 2. Child's Grade- -- 3. Child's Race: Black. _ _ White. __ _ Other _ _ 4. Do you live in: Little Rock ____ _ North Little Rock ____ Pulaski County District ___ _ 5. Did your child attend this school last year? Yes __ _ No __ _ =================-=======-======-=====-================================ Directions: Read each of the statements very carefully and indicate your response to each one using the following scale: Mark column T if you think the statement is TRUE GT if you think the statement is GENERALLY TRUE GF if you think the statement is GENERALLY FALSE F if you think the statement is FALSE PLEASE PUT AN (X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR CHOICE T GT GF F MO 6. I attend school programs and activities on a I 141 I 150 j 31 l 30 3 regular basis. 7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. 1132 1144114 I 16 49 8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and I 55 1166195 133 6 programs in the magnet schools. 9. The school actively encourages parent I 241 l 96 l lo l 4 I 4 involvement. 10. All of my questions about magnet schools were 1184 !129\\21 I 21 I 0 answered before I selected this school for my child. 126 I l l I I 11. My responsibilities (at home or work} prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 17. 18. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. 19. community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. 23. I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: {please circle one) 75 T GT GF F MO 1361 69 173 2 74 1711 61 I 10 39 I I 219 I 101' 19 I 12 I 4 I 50 I 117 I 91 I n I 5 I 2051100I 30 I 12I 8 l111l10il41l 47I55I I 1s9I 127I 25 5 9 187 I 141I 46 30 I 51 1211157144 7 l26 I 230, 74 34 13 I 4 219 I 69 11 I 17 1 39 1 1951 1211 25 8 I 6 I A. from school notices sent home 229 B. from talking with my child 63 c. from announcements in newspapers, on radio or TV o D. from talking with other parents 6 E. Missing Data 57 127 MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION Parent Form: p-89 Since your name or your child's name will not appear anywhere on this form, we ask that you please answer all questions openly and honestly. Information gathered from parents can and will make a difference. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION Questions 1-5 ask for general information: 1. Child's School- -G-ibb-s -N=-27- l -------- 3. Child's Race: Black___ White _ _ 4. Do you live in: Little Rock ____ _ 2. Child's Grade _ _ Other _ _ North Little Rock ____ Pulaski County District ___ _ 5. Did your child attend this school last year? Yes __ _ No __ _ ==================c============================================ ======= Directions: Read each of the statements very carefully and indicate your response to each one using the following scale: 6. 7. 8. 9. - 10. Mark Column T if you think the statement is TRUE GT if you think the statement is GENERALLY TRUE GF if you think the statement is GENERALLY FALSE F if you think the statement is FALSE PLEASE PUT AN (X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR CHOICE T GT GF F I attend school programs and activities on a regular basis. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and programs in the magnet schools. The school actively encourages parent involvement. All of my questions about magnet schools were answered before I selected this school for my child. 128 133I117 I 12 I 93 1 91 1 42 I 129 I 62 !201 1 62 1 6 l12s 1111 I 1s MO s 7 1 11 I 11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 17. 18. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. 19. Community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. 23. I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: (please circle one) T GT GF F MO 1 38 1 89 67 75 2 162 1137 3 7 9 I 26 135 1001 25 11 0 150 109 I 70 39 J 153 91 13 10 4 78 78 17 28 170 1621 98 146 1 99 33 122 1 71 1 108 j 125 I 23 5 10 1451 8 71 2 7 9 3 1481 55 I 148, 95 A. from school notices sent home 195 B. from talking with my child 39 C. from announcements in newspapers, on radio or TV O D. from talking with other parents 1 E. Missing Data 36 129 MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION Parent Form: p-89 Since your name or your child's name will not appear anywhere on this form, we ask that you please answer all questionsopenly and honestly. Information gathered from parents can and will make a difference. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION Questions 1-5 ask for general information: 1. Child's School _ W_i_l_l_i_a_m_s_M_a~g~n_e_t _ N_=_4_0_3 __ _ 2. Child's Grade --- 3. Child's Race: Black _ _ White _ _ Other _ _ 4. Do you live in: Little Rock ____ _ North Little Rock ____ Pulaski County District ___ _ 5. Did your child attend this school last year? Yes __ _ No --- ======================================================================= Directions: Read each of the statements very carefully and indicate your response to each one using the following scale: 6. Mark Column T if you think the statement is TRUE GT if you think the statement is GENERALLY TRUE GF if you think the statement is GENERALLY FALSE F if you think the statement is FALSE PLEASE PUT AN (X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR CHOICE T GT GF F I attend school programs and activities on a regular basis. I247 I 132 I 12 MO 7. 8. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and programs in the magnet schools. I 145 I 144 I 23 16 I 75 I 9. 10. The school actively encourages parent involvement. All of my questions about magnet schools were answered before I selected this school for my child. 130 51 l 195 I 114 I 38 I s I I 31 l 79 I 10 I I 208 I 140 I 321 20 I 3 I 11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 17. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. 18. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have - control of the students on the bus. 19. Community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. 23. I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: {please circle one) T GT GF F MO 63 116 I 101 !118 j J 100 I 211 1 so J 28s I 18 19 17 4 I 561 112 I 1381 92 5 11811132152 28 l142l122l2s 33 81 l229l1s4l12 4 4 1 64 I 1a9 I 4 s 23 8 2 11971167,22 5 12 I 214 I 99 13 13 4 1243187 I 10 9 54 I 224 I 1so I 18 6 5 A. from school notices sent home 327 B. from talking with my child 37 c. from announcements in newspapers, on radio or TV O D. from talking with other parents 3 E. Missing Data 36 131 - - MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION Parent Form: p-89 Since your name or your child's name will not appear anywhere on this form, we ask that you please answer all questions openly and honestly. Information gathered from parents can and will make a difference. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION Questions 1-5 ask for general information: 1. Child s School Mann Magnet N=349 2. Child's Grade --- 3. Child's Race: Black___ White _ _ Other --- 4. Do you live in: Little Rock ------ North Little Rock ____ Pulaski County District ____ _ 5. Did your child attend this school last year? Yes __ _ No __ _ Directions: Read each of the statements very carefully and indicate your response to each one using the following scale: ,_ Mark Column T if you think the statement is TRUE GT if you think the statement is GENERALLY TRUE GF if you think the statement is GENERALLY FALSE F if you think the statement is FALSE PLEASE PUT AN (X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR CHOICE T GT GF F MO 6. I attend school programs and activities on a I 99 11661 41 I 40 3 I regular basis. 7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. I 139 I 1so I 26 l20 I 14 I 8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and . I 109146 I 37 I 150 I 7 programs in the magnet schools. 9. The school actively encourages parent l12s I 1421 s1l20 2 I involvement. 10. All of my questions about magnet schools were 11481 1431 33 23 2 I answered before I selected this school for my child. 132 T GT GF F MO 11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 162 I 113 I 83 84 7 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 17. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. 18. Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. 19. community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music centers) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. 62 I 152 72 180 I l 13 I 36 52 I 93 I 98 1141 1129 I 37 1131 I 1201 30 1081 1591 46 52 1171 152 1161 1651 30 11561 1131 45 2061 85 113 111 I 52 I I l 5 s I 101 s 124 181 I 4 71 211 I 24 I 12 I I 51 I 231 1 16 I 22 I 31 I 4 I 29 I 16 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. 1531 1421 32113 I 9 23. I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: (please circle one) A. from school notices sent home B. from talking with my child c. from announcements in newspapers, 124 163 on radio or TV 6 D. from talking with other parents 10 E. Missing Data 46 133 - MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION Parent Form: p-89 Since your name or your child's name will not appear anywhere on this form, we ask that you please answer all questions openly and honestly. Information gathered from parents can and will make a difference. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION Questions 1-5 ask for general information: 1. Child's School __ P_a_r_k_v_i_ew_M_a_g_n_e_t _ N_=_l_8_6 _ 2. Child's Grade 3. Child's Race: Black _ _ White --- Other _ _ 4. Do you live in: Little Rock ____ _ --- North Little Rock ____ Pulaski County District ___ _ 5. Did your child attend this school last year? Yes __ _ No __ _ ===========-===---------------==---==================================== Directions: Read each of the statements very carefully and indicate your response to each one using the following scale:  :.f~ Mark Colwnn T if you think the statement is TRUE GT if you think the statement is GENERALLY TRUE GF if you think the statement is GENERALLY FALSE F if you think the statement is FALSE PLEASE PUT AN (X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR CHOICE T GT GF F MO 6. I attend school programs and activities on a I 58 regular basis. 71 25 I 32 I 0 7. The bus is generally on time at the bus stops. I 44 68 141 16 I 44 I I 8. The media (Newspapers-Radio-TV) provide adequate coverage of the activities and I 31 I 82 I 391 33 I 1 I programs in the magnet schools. 9. The school actively encourages parent I 71 I nl 241 12 I 2 I involvement. - 10. All of my questions about magnet schools were I 75 76 I 20 I 15 I 0 I answered before I selected this school for my child. 134 11. My responsibilities (at home or work) prevent me from being active in my child's school at this time. 12. Various members of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski county communities are involved with the magnet schools as guest speakers, providing classroom display materials or providing special equipment. 13. The expectations of the students were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 14. I know about the activities and programs at the other magnet schools. 15. I feel free to discuss concerns of the school during parent/teacher organization meetings. 16. The amount of time my child spends on the bus is satisfactory with me. 17. 18. 19. My child's school is making a sincere effort to keep the parents and community at-large informed of the school's purpose and program. -~ \\ Bus drivers are competent, courteous and have control of the students on the bus. ., ' Community sponsored organizations and civic centers (i.e. museums, art centers, music :enters) are active as hosts for magnet school class visits. 20. The expectations of the parents were made clear before I selected this magnet school. 21. I was properly informed about bus schedules, bus stop locations, and expected student conduct on the bus. 22. It is easy to obtain information about the magnet school program. 23. I receive most of my information about the activities at my child's school: (please circle one) T GT GF F MO I 48 1 48 40148 2 26 82 38 I 93 I 72 11 9 I 27 143 44168 I 69 I 77 18 I 16 I 41 I so 18 I ss I 99 21 11 I o I I 20 1 60 25 1 52 1 85 1 26 11 1 79 1 70 19 16 2 1 88 I 37 10 1 81 1 81 15 5 4 A. from school notices sent home 35 B. from talking with my child 127 c. from announcements in newspapers, on radio or TV 4 D. from talking with other parents E. Missing Data 135 3 17 APPENDIX C 136 ..... w -..J PERCENTILE MAT -6  SUMMARY MALE STUDENTS 100 ,------------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD - BOOKER Hmm~ MANN 1989 MAGNET SCHOOLS MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS ~ CARVER h?/J GI BBS - WILLIAMS  PARKVIEW ...... w (X) PERCENTILE MAT-6 SUMMARY FEMALE STUDENTS 100 .------------------------ 80 60 40 20 0 RD - BOOKER Hmm~ MANN 1989 MAGNET SCHOOLS MA LA BB SC ss MAT-6 SUB-TESTS ~ CARVER tt?d GI BBS 8 WILLIAMS 0 PARKVIEW ...... w \\0 PERCENTILE MAGNET SCHOOL MAT -6 SCORES 100 .-------------------------. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 RD - BOOKER nmrn~ MANN 1989 - BLACK MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS ~ CARVER FtHJ GIBBS m WILLIAMS 0 PARKVIEW ...... \"\"' 0 PERCENTILE MAGNET SCHOOL MAT -6 SCORES 100 ,----------------------------, 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 RD - BOOKER llmlg~ MANN 1989 - WHITE MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS ~ CARVER Mt=t :I GIBBS - WILLIAMS 0 PARKVIEW I-' ~ I-' MAT-6 SUMMARY BOOKER STUDENTS PERCENTILE 100 .--------------------. 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA 88 SC ss MAT -6 SUB-TESTS - FEMALE ~ MALE 1989 GRADE 4: BY SEX PERCENTILE MAT -6 SUMMARY CARVER STUDENTS 100 ..-------------------------. 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB- TESTS .. FEMALE ~ MALE 1989 GRADE 4: BY SEX  PERCENTILE MAT-6 SUMMARY GIBBS STUDENTS 100 ,------------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RD MA LA BB SC ss MAT-6 SUB-TESTS ... FEMALE ~ MALE 1989 GRADE 4: BY SEX  PERCENTILE MAT -6 SUMMARY  WILLIAMS STUDENTS 100 .-----------------------, 80 60 40 20 0 RO MA LA BB SC ss MAT -6 SUB- TESTS Ill FEMALE ~ MALE 1989 GRAD '1: BY SEX \nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1131","title":"Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation","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":["Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services"],"dc_date":["1990-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","Arkansas State University","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation"],"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/1131"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n(])ulaski CountH Dnterdistrict ~agnet Schools evaluation 1991-1992 ARKA.NSAS STATE UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Prepared for The Magnet Review Committee Conducted by Educational Research \u0026amp; services Arkansas State University August l, 1992 Project Staff A~- ~ /~So ~~,,, A,e Gerald B. Dickinson, Director Consultant/Authors Mitch Holifield Don Wright Consultants Dianne Prince Kent Layton Ron Towery Jane Gates Virginia Rhodes, Production Manager Graduate Assistants Barbara McFarland Dennis Martin Becky Gibson ,. AC:DlOWLEDGMENTS I gratefully acknowledge the help and cooperation of Ms. Donna Grady-Creer, her office staff, the Magnet Review committee, and all the staff and administration at the magnet schools. The evaluation project was made easier by the honest, forthright and candid responses from district faculty and staff. The Magnet Review Committee is courageous efforts in providing the County the best possible education. continued support. to be commended on their children of Pulaski I encourage their A great debt is owed my respected colleagues for their professional work and dedication to the project. Finally, a huge \"thanks\" to my office staff and research assistants without whom this evaluation project could not have been completed. Gerald Dickinson, Project Director TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section I. Student and Staff Movement......................... 3 Section II. Mimimum Performance Testing ........................ 19 Metropolitan Achievement Testing ................... 44 American College Testing ........................... 102 Section III. Desegregation ...................................... 103 Section IV. Summative Evaluation ............................... 142 PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION July 16, 1992 Evaluation Report Format This evaluation report is designed to provide a logical and sequential accounting of project objectives, assessment activities and evaluation reports. A formative evaluation for each objective is provided in separate sections to facilitate a measure of success in achievement or completion of each of the expected outcomes. Section titles correspond to Expected outcomes as identified in the evaluation proposal. The fourth section has been designed for summative evaluation. 1. student and Staff Movement -- To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding student\\staff movement during the past year: a. What staffing patterns are evident regarding teacher movement in the magnet schools? b. What type of student is on the waiting list for assignment to a magnet school i.e., race, sex, grade, magnet theme? 2. Student Achievement -- To obtain 1991 standardized scale scores for the following tests for the appropriate grade groups: a. Minimum Performance Test (MPT) Grades 3-6-8 b. Metropolitan Achievement Test, 6th edition (MAT 6) Grades 4-7-10 c. American College Test (ACT) Grade 12 3. Desegregation -- To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of the magnet schools toward the \"desegregation\" goal of the project. a. What is the social interaction between and within the disaggregated groups by race, sex, and socio-economic status? Additional variables of solidarity and isolation will be studied for students, staff and parents. b. Are there evidences of stereotyping by students, i.e., graffiti and name calling? 1 c. What are the reflections of the academic and professional interactions between the building administrators and the teaching staff during staff meetings, between teachers and students during class interactions, and between the building administrative staff, teachers, and students during school related activities? 4. Analysis and Interpretation -- To utilize appropriate evaluation techniques and strategies in the analysis of data and correct interpretation of results. This section pertains to procedure and is relevant to other sections. There is no evaluation component that corresponds to this section since it is relevant to the other evaluation components. 5. Summative Evaluation -- Each section of the evaluation (sections 1-3) is formative in that it becomes a part of the summative evaluation (section 4). The Sununative Evaluation section will draw together data from each of the component sections to generalize conclusions and convey statements about the magnet school program as a whole. 2 SECTION I Student and Staff Movement PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: student and staff Movement BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives in Expected Outcomes, Number 1, (A and B), listed below. To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding student\\staff movement during the past year: A. What staffing patterns are evident regarding teacher movement in the magnet schools? B. What type of student is on the waiting list for assignment to a magnet school i.e., race, sex, grade, magnet theme? The personnel function of any organization must support the overall strategy of the organization. Human resource planning is an integral part of the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program. The functions of the staffing component of the magnet plan are carried out by the Little Rock School District Office of Personnel. Magnet school enrollment is allocated among the three participating districts, Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special, by percentage of total enrollment in each district. The enrollment percentage allotments by district are as follows: Little Rock: North Little Rock: Pulaski County Special: 43% 42% 15% 42% 43% (Elementary) (Secondary) (a maximum of 100 students may attend Parkview) (Elementary) (Secondary) A \"shadow area\" is designated surrounding each school, from which 20% of Little Rock's enrollment allocation comes. Also, 50% of the total magnet school enrollment must be black and 50% non-black. 3 METHODOLOGY The evaluator visited LRSD Personnel Office to determine the staffing procedures and to gather data relative to staff turnover and other pertinent data. Following proper communications, data were received from the LRSD regarding students waiting to enter the interdistrict magnet schools. Data were also provided regarding total enrollments in each participating district, and disaggregation of total enrollment numbers by grade. FINDINGS staffing The staff of the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools are employees of the Little Rock School District. Recommendations for filling vacancies are made by each building principal and his site committee. The personnel office is responsible for contracting magnet school staff, subject to approval of the Magnet Review Committee. The office is run by a Director of Personnel for the Little Rock School District. Office staff are aware of and sensitive to major laws affecting hiring practices including Equal Employment Opportunity, Affirmative Action Programs and others. Office personnel reported that there was very little turnover in magnet school staff. Recruitment efforts were minimal because of internal personnel available for any vacancies. Additional information relative to staff movement may be provided in an addendum when data are provided to the evaluator. Student Movement Data relative to student movement was gathered by investigating student waiting lists for all magnet schools and the three Pulaski county districts. The waiting list data received were disaggregated by district, magnet theme desired and race. The data were not disaggregated by sex or by grade. Tables 1-12 and Graphs 1-11 following reflect the data provided to the evaluator. Table 1 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to Booker Elementary School. 4 District TABLE l students Waiting Assignment Booker Elementary School # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 38 18 Little Rock 468 101 Pulaski County 30 12 # Waiting Total 56 569 42 Graph 1 below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Booker Elementary School. Graph l Booker Elementary School students Waiting Assignment Nunoer aoo,--------------------, 7001------------------------i Graph 1 Nortn Little Rock 56Q Little Rock School District Pulaski Col.ntY - Sieck a Wnite O Total Table 2 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to carver Elementary School. 5 District TABLE 2 Students Waiting Assignment Carver Elementary School # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 47 39 Little Rock 413 168 Pulaski County 8 28 # Waiting Total 86 581 36 Graph 2 below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Carver Elementary Magnet School. Graph 2 carver Elementary School Students Waiting Assignment Nuncer aoo~-------------------, 700~--------------------i 581 8 Nortn L1ttte Roel\u0026lt; Littte Roel\u0026lt; Pulaski C:O..,ty  School District  8lacl\u0026lt; ~ Wnite D Total Graph 2 Table 3 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to Gibbs Elementary School. 6 District TABLE 3 Students Waiting Assignment Gibbs Elementary School # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 5 2 Little Rock 479 103 Pulaski County 7 3 # Waiting Total 7 582 10 Graph J below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Gibbs Elementary School. Graph 3 Gibbs Elementary School students Waiting Assignment No.mtier aoo..------------------ 1001------------------- 001-------- 3001-------- 2001-------- 1001-----5--2 ~ 7~ oL.....c.=z:=::.=:z.....- Norin L,111e Roel\u0026lt; l.Jttle Floek - School District PuJaak1 County - Black a wn,,e D Total Graph 3 Table 4 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to Williams Elementary School. 7 District TABLE 4 students Waiting Assignment Williams Elementary School # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 8 4 Little Rock 473 321 Pulaski County 4 12 # Waiting Total 12 794 16 Graph 4 below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Williams Elementary School. Graph 4 Williams Elementary School Students Waiting Assignment 794 Number aoo,-----------,~~--------, 700-----------,1----++-----------, eoo--- - ----- --,1---1-r-----------, 400---- --- 300------- 200 f----- - - - 100 Nortn Li ttle Rock 473 Lit tle ~OCk - School District Pulaski County  Black l.\\\\\\\\'i1 wnite O Total Graph 4 Table 5 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to Horace Mann Junior High School's Arts magnet theme. 8 TABLE 5 Students Waiting Assignment Horace Mann Junior High School--Arts I Waiting # Waiting District Black White North Little Rock 12 0 Little Rock 464 211 Pulaski County 14 7 I Waiting Total 12 675 21 Graph 5 below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Mann Junior High School - Arts. Graphs Horace Mann Junior High School--Arts students Waiting Assignment NLmOer aoo~-------------------. 00\u0026gt;--------- 300\u0026gt;--------- 200------- 100 r----,.,.-------,--0---,r-- !!75 Nortn l.1ttle RoCk Little Rock Pulaakl County SchOol District - BleCk m Wnite D Total Graph 5 Table 6 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to Horace Mann Junior High School's Science magnet theme. 9 TABLE 6 Students Waiting Assignment Horace Mann Junior High School--Science I Waiting I Waiting District Black White North Little Rock 11 5 Little Rock 466 84 Pulaski county 11 34 I Waiting Total 16 550 45 Graph 6 below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Horace Mann Junior High School - Science. Graph 6 Horace Mann Junior High School--Science Students Waiting Assignment Nt.moer 800 700 eoo 500 400 300 200 100 ~ 5 0 Nortrl Little Rock Uttle Rock Putaski C.OU,,ty -School District - Black a WP'l,te D Total Graph 6 Table 7 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to Parkview High School's Arts magnet theme. 10 District TABLE 7 students Waiting Assignment Par.Jtview High School--Arts I Waiting # waiting Black White North Little Rock 15 6 Little Rock 581 131 Pulaski County 10 4 I Waiting Total 21 712 14 Graph 7 below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Parkview High School's Arts magnet theme. 800 700 eoo 500 400 300 200 100 0 Graph 7 Parkview High School--Arts Students Waiting Assignment Nunber e Nor tr, L, ttle Rock Uttle Rock School District Pulaski County - Siad\u0026lt; ~ White  Total Graph 7 Table 8 on the following page presents the number of students, disaggregated by district and by race, who are on the waiting list for assignment to Parkview High School's Science magnet theme. 11 District TABLE 8 students Waiting Assignment Parkview High School--Science # Waiting # Waiting Black White North Little Rock 1 0 Little Rock 337 32 Pulaski County 1 15 # Waiting Total l 369 16 Graph 8 below depicts the waiting list numbers by district and by race for Parkview High School's Science magnet theme. Graph 8 Parkview High School--Science students Waiting Assignment NLmber eoo,--------------------, 1001---------------------1 eoo1---------------------1 5001---------------------1 300\u0026gt;-------- 200------,00---,-- 0-,-- o L....c.::::z::::::\n~z_- Little Roel\u0026lt; School District Pulaski County - Bleck !,\\\\\\\\II White CJ Total Graph 8 Table 9 on the following page presents the students in the North Little Rock District who have requested assignment to the interdistrict magnet schools. The numbers are disaggregated by school requested and by race. 12 TABLE 9 Students Waiting Assignment North Little Rock School District School # Waiting # Waiting Desired Black White Booker 38 18 carver 47 39 Gibbs 5 2 Williams 8 4 Mann-Arts 12 0 Mann-Science 11 5 Parkview-Arts 15 6 Parkview-Science 1 0 # Waiting Total 56 86 7 12 12 16 21 1 Graph 9 below depicts the waiting list numbers for the North Little Rock School District by school requested and by race . Graph 9 North Little Rock School District Students Waiting Assignment Number 100,....:....~-------------------, 901------------------- --1 aol-------------------1 70 1-------- - ----------- -1 eo----- ------ 50f---,.:_47~ --------------1 40~.,.-- 30 20 10 0 Graph 9 School Requested - Black B Wl'l11e 13 Table 10 below presents the students in the Little Rock School District who have requested assignment to the interdistrict magnet schools. The numbers are disaggregated by school requested and by race. School Desired Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Mann-Arts Mann-Science Parkview-Arts TABLE 10 students Waiting Assignment Little Rock School District # Waiting I Waiting Black White 468 101 413 168 479 103 473 321 464 211 466 84 581 131 Parkview-Science 337 32 # Waiting Total 569 581 582 794 675 550 712 369 Graph 10 below depicts the waiting list numbers for the Little Rock School District by magnet school requested and by race. Graph 10 Little Rock School District students Waiting Assignment NllT\\ber 581 600.-----------------,\n:::::::-----, Graph 10 School Requested - Black 9 White 14 Table 11 below presents the students in the Pulaski County Special School District who have requested assignment to the interdistrict magnet schools. The numbers are disaggregated by school requested and by race. TABLE 11 students waiting Assignment Pulaski County Special School District School # Waiting # Waiting # Desired Black White Booker 30 12 Carver 8 28 Gibbs 4 12 Williams 4 12 Mann-Arts 14 7 Mann-Science 11 34 Parkview-Arts 10 4 Parkview-Science 1 15 Waiting Total 42 36 16 16 21 45 14 16 Graph 11 below depicts waiting list numbers for the Pulaski county Special School District by magnet school requested and by race. Graph 11 Pulaski County Special School District Students Waiting Assignment Number ,oo------------------ g()t--------------------4 sot--------------------4 70~-------------------l eo---------------------------1 50t--- ------------- - ---4 40~------------a-L-.------l 301-,\ni--- 20 10 0 Graph 11 School Requested - Bleck ~ WMe 15 Enrollment figures for each school district for the 1991-1992 school year, excluding magnet school enrollments, are as follows: Little Rock: North Little Rock: Pulaski County Special: 25,962 9,029 20,501 Table 12 below presents the total number of students as well as the percentage of students in each district who are on magnet school waiting lists. TABLE 12 Total students Waiting Assignment By School District Total Students Percent of Non- District On Waiting List Magnet Students Little Rock 4832 18.6% No. Little Rock 211 2.3% Pulaski Co. 200 1.0% Almost 19% of Little Rock students who are not now in magnet schools are on waiting lists for those schools. In contrast, only 2.3% of North Little Rock students and 1% of Pulaski County students who are not now in magnet schools are on waiting lists for them. Enrollment information for each district was further disaggregated, with separate figures provided for elementary, junior high and high school enrollments. The enrollment figures are as follows: North Little Rock Elementary Junior High (7-8) Senior High (9-12) Little Rock Elementary Junior High Senior High 16 5167 1505 2357 14767 6062 5509 Pulaski County Elementary Junior High Senior High 11767 4732 4002 Table 13 below presents the percentage of students, by grade group, in each district who are on waiting lists for assignment to interdistrict magnet schools. TABLE 13 students Waiting Assignment By District and By Grade Group Total Students Percent of Non- District/Grade Group On Waiting List Magnet Students North Little Rock - Elementary 161 3.0% Junior High 28 1.8% Senior High 22 1.0% Little Rock - Elementary 2526 17.6% Junior High 1225 20.2% Senior High 1081 19.6% Pulaski County - Elementary 104 0.9% Junior High 66 1.4% Senior High 30 0.7% In the North Little Rock district, a higher percentage of elementary school students are requesting placement in magnet schools. In the Little Rock and Pulaski County districts, junior high students are requesting placement in magnet schools at higher percentage rates. 17 CONCLUSIONS * The magnet school staff consists of highly qualified and dedicated teachers and administrators. * There is very little movement (turnover) in magnet school staff. * All Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools have waiting lists including both black and white students. * All three school districts have students on the waiting lists for magnet schools. * The Little Rock School District has the highest percentage of enrollment on waiting lists for magnet schools. 18 SECTION II Student Achievement POLASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Standardized Testing Program BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives in Expected outcomes, Number 2, (A and B), listed below. To obtain the standardized scale scores for the following tests for the appropriate grade groups and to analyze and assess magnet school student performance: A. Minimum Performance Test (MPT) Grades 3-6-8 (1991) B. Metropolitan Achievement Test, 6th edition (MAT 6) Grades 4-7-10 (1991) C. American College Test (ACT) - Grade 12 METHODOLOGY Following proper communications, data were received from the LRSD and the State Department of Education. Data were then subjected to both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses using the PC computer and statistical software package \"Statistics With Finesse.\" FINDINGS Minimum Performance Tests Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT) data were received from the Little Rock School District. Test data were disaggregated by school, grade, sex and race. The only scores provided for the MPT, administered in grades three, six and eight, were the percent passing. These data prohibited the evaluator from making statistical comparisons in that statistics are not accurate when using percentile scores. The MRC should use caution when comparing test data. Percent passing information disaggregated by school, grade, sex and race is presented in graphic form. A section is included for comparing magnet schools in grades three and six. For grade three, reading and math percentiles for students passing are presented. For grades six and eight, percentiles for students passing are presented for reading, mathematics, language arts, science and social studies. According to Public Law 6-15-412, \"It is the policy of this state that at least eighty-five percent (85%) of the students in each school and school district at each grade level at which competency tests are administered should score at or 19 above the level of performance established for mastery of basic skills\". 'l'hroughout this document, this minimum Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) requirement is compared to magnet school percent pass results. Grade Three There were 30,990 total third-grade students state-wide that took the MPT in reading. Ninety-three percent {93.0%) received a passing score or higher on the reading subtest. The percent passing for the 1991 school year is one percent lower (94% compared with 93%) than the percent passing the previous year. State-wide, there were 471 schools {85.0% of the total schools) with eighty-five percent (85%) of their students passing. There were 30,990 total third-grade students state-wide that took the MPT in math. Ninety-two percent {92.2%) received a passing score or higher on the math subtest. State-wide there were 460 schools {83.0%) of the total schools) with eighty-five percent (85%) of their students passing. The percent passing for third-grade students in each of the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools is compared to the percent passing for third-grade students state-wide. Tables are presented to show the percent passing for both the reading and the math subtests. Graphs are also provided for quick visual comparisons of how third graders at each magnet school performed in comparison with third graders state-wide for both the reading and the math subtests. A final comparison of percent passing for all magnet thirdgrade students is compared to the percent passing for all third-grade students state-wide. 20 Booker Elementary School r The passing rate for third-grade students at Booker Elementary was above the ADE required eighty-five percent (85%) passing rate. Eighty-two third-grade students were tested at Booker Elementary School. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the students (76 of 82) passed the MPT in reading. Ninety-one percent (91%, or 75 of 82) passed the MPT in math. Further disaggregation of the results by race and sex are presented in Table 1 on the following page. Table 1 Booker Elementary Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing By Race\\Sex students By Race\\Sex State: All Students Booker: All Students Black Males Black Females White Males White Females *Others N=82 Reading % Pass 93 93 89 90 100 95 Mathematics % Pass 92 91 78 94 100 95 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores were not reported by gender. The passing rate for all third-grade students at Booker was about the same as the passing rate for third-grade students state-wide. Black males and black females were below the state percentage passing when compared to all students statewide in reading. Only black males were below the state percentage passing for all students in math. Graph 1 reflects the percent passing for third-grade students at Booker Elementary compared to the percent passing for third-grade students state-wide on reading. Graph 2 shows the percent passing for math compared to the state-wide percent passing. State-wide data for percent passing were not disaggregated by race\\sex and the MRC should use caution when interpreting results of comparisons of magnet . scores to state-wide scores. See Graphs 1 and 2 on the following page. 21 Booker Percent Passing by Graph 1 Elementary Third Grade Reading Race\\Sex Compared to State Percent Passing N:82 Percent 120$ ,----------------------- 0% State All Stuoents 81 Male 81 Female w Maie w Female - Reading MPT Grae\u0026gt;n 1 Graph 2 Booker Elementary Third Grade Math Percent Passing by Race\\Sex Compared to state Percent Passing N:82 Percent 120$,----------------------- 100$ 100$ 80$ 60$ 20$ State All Stuoents 81 Male 81 Female W MMe w Fem.e  Marn MPT Graot\\ 2 22 carver Elementary School ~ The percent of students passing at Carver Elementary on both the reading and math subtests was above the eighty-five percent (85%) passing required by the ADE. Eighty-seven third-grade students at Carver took the MPT. Ninety-nine percent (99%, or 86 of 87) of Carver third graders passed the MPT in reading. Ninety-seven percent (97%, or 84 of 87) of the third-grade students passed the MPT in math. All sub-groups were above the state-wide percent passing in reading. All sub-groups except black females were above the state-wide percent passing in math. Black females at ninety percent (90%) were below the state percent passing in math but well above the eighty-five percent (85%) passing rate required by the ADE. MPT results disaggregated by race and sex are shown in Table 2 and Graphs 3 and 4 below. Table 2 carver Elementary Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing By Race\\sex Students By Race\\Sex state: All Students Carver: All Students Black Males Black Females White Males White Females *Others N=87 Reading % Pass 93 99 100 95 100 100 Mathematics % Pass 92 97 100 90 96 100 * Total of all students in-the \"Other\" race category. These scores were not reported by gender. Graphs 3 and 4 on the following page present a comparison of the percent of Carver Elementary third-grade students passing the MPT to the state-wide percent passing the MPT for reading and math. 23 Graph 3 carver Elementary Third Grade Reading Percent Passing DY Race\\Sex Compared to State Percent Passing N:87 Percent 120'llr----------------------, 40'11 20$ 0'l!. - A88\u0026lt;l1ng M?T Gnon ~ Graph 4 Carver Elementary Third Grade Math Percent Passing Dy Race\\Sex Compared to state Percent Passing N=87 Percent 120'11 100$ 100'11 100$ 80'l!. 60'11 40$ 20'l!. 0'l!. Stare All sruoenrs 81 ~ale 81 Female w ~ ... w Female -Marn MPT Graon 4 24 Gibbs Elementary School ,. Forty-two third-grade students at Gibbs Elementary took the MPT. Thirty-eight (90 percent) passed the reading sub-test and thirty-seven (88 percent) passed the math subtest. Table 3 below shows the percent passing for Gibbs Elementary third graders disaggregated by race and sex. Table 3 Gibbs Elementary Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing by Race\\Sex N=42 students Reading Mathematics By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass State: All Students 93 92 Gibbs: All students 90 88 Black Males 78 89 Black Females 86 71 White Males 100 100 White Females 100 100 *Others 100 100 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores were not reported by gender Graphs 5 and 6 on the following page reflect the comparisons of percent passing reading and math for third grade at Gibbs Elementary compared to the percent passing for third grade state-wide. Black males in reading and black females in math did not pass at the eighty-five percent (85%) level required by the ADE. Percent passing in reading at Gibbs Elementary third grade are compared to percent passing reading for all third graders state-wide in Graph 5. Graph 6 shows percent passing math at Gibbs Elementary compared to the percent passing math for all students state-wide. 25 Graph S Gibbs Elementary Third Grade Reading Percent Passing by Race\\Sex Compared to State Percent Passing N=42 Percenl 120'llr-----------------------, - Aeaa,ng MPT Graen 5 Graph 6 Gibbs Elementary Third Grade Math Percent Passing by Race\\Sex Compared to state Percent Passing N=42 Percen1 120'!1,----------------------- 100'!1 100'!1 100'!1 0'll State All Stuoenr 81 ~ale 91 Female w ~ w Femaie Othefs  Main MPT Graen 6 26 Williams Elementary School r Sixty-five third-grade students took the MPT test at Williams Elementary School. Ninety-four percent (94%) passed the reading subtest and the same percent of students (94%) passed the math subtest. Table 4 below shows the percent of Williams third-grade students passing the MPT compared to the percent of third-grade students passing state-wide. Results are disaggregated by race\\sex. Table 4 Williams Elementary Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing by Race\\Sex Students By Race\\Sex State: All Students Williams: All Students Black Males Black Females White Males White Females * Others N:65 Reading % Pass 93 94 94 89 100 94 100 Mathematics % Pass 92 94 88 94 100 94 100 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores are not reported by gender. The percent passing for third-grade students at Williams Elementary is higher than the percent passing for third-grade students state-wide. All groups, when disaggregated by race\\sex, had passing rates higher than the eighty-five percent (85%) level required by the ADE. Graphs 7 and 8 on the following page show the comparisons of percent passing for third-grade students at Williams Elementary to the percent passing for third-grade students state-wide for both the reading and the math MPT subtests. 27 Graph 7 Williams Elementary Third Grade Reading Percent Passing by Race\\Sex Compared to State Percent Passing N:65 Percenr 120'!/ir------------------------.. 100'6 100'!/i Stat All Student 81 Male 81 Fem.I W Male W Ftimale Otha - Reading MPT Graen 7 Graph 8 Williams Elementary Third Grade Math Percent Passing by Race\\Sex Compared to state Percent Passing N:65 Percenr 12Q'l/i,----------------------~ State .a.u Sruoenr Bl ~ale 81 Female w MIiie w Femat OtMrs  Marn M?T Graen 8 28 All Magnets -- Third Grade There were 276 magnet school third graders who took the MPT in reading and math. Ninety-five percent {94.5%, or 261 of 276) passed the MPT reading subtest, compared to the statewide percent passing of ninety-three percent (93.0%). Ninety-three percent (93.1%, or 257 of 276) magnet school third graders passed the MPT math subtest. The state-wide percent passing the math subtest was ninety-two percent (92.2%). Table 5 below shows the comparison of percent passing for all third-grade magnet school students to the percent passing for all third-grade students state-wide. Magnet School Williams Carver Gibbs Booker Total-Mag. Total-State Table 5 Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing by Magnet N:276 Reading No. No. % No. Pass Tested Pass Pass 61 65 94% 61 86 87 99% 84 38 42 90% 37 76 82 93% 75 261 276 95% 257 28834 30990 93% 28567 All Magnets -- Black Males Math No. % Tested Pass 65 94% 87 97% 42 88% 82 91% 276 93% 30990 92% The percent passing for black males as a group was ninetythree percent {93%, or 63 of 68) for reading and was above . the eighty-five percent (85%) required by ADE. The percent passing for black males as a  group for math was ninety percent (90%, or 61 of 68). For only one sub-group, black males, in reading at Gibbs Elementary (78%) and math at Booker (78%), was the percent passing below the eighty-five percent (85%) passing rate required by ADE. Table 6 on the following page shows the percent passing for all black males for each magnet school for reading and math. 29 Magnet School Williams Carver Gibbs Booker Totals Table 6 Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing--Black Males N:68 Reading No. No. No. Pass Tested % Pass Pass 15 16 94% 14 25 25 100% 25 7 9 78% 8 16 18 89% 14 63 68 93% 61 All Magnets -- Black Females Math No. Tested % Pass 16 88% 25 100% 9 89% 18 78% 68 90% Ninety-one percent (91%, or 76 of 84) of all third-grade black females passed the MPT reading subtest. Ninety percent (90%, or 75 of 84) passed the MPT math subtest. Only one sub-group of black females, in reading at Booker (71%), had a percent passing lower than the eighty-five percent (85%) passing score required by ADE. Table 7 below shows the percent passing for black females for each magnet school. Magnet School Williams Carver Gibbs Booker Totals Table 7 Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing--- Black Females N:84 Reading Math No. No. No. No. Pass Tested % Pass Pass Tested 16 18 89% 17 18 20 21 95% 19 21 12 14 86% 10 14 28 31 90% 29 31 76 84 91% 75 84 All Magnets -- White Males % Pass 94% 90% 71% 94% 90% Fifty-nine white males took the MPT for reading and math. All white males passed the MPT reading subtest and ninetyeight percent (98%, or 58 of 59) passed the MPT math subtest. Table 8 on the following page shows the percent of thirdgrade white males passing the MPT tests. 30 Magnet School Williams Carver Gibbs Booker Totals Table 8 r Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing--White Males N:59 Reading No. No. No. Pass Tested % Pass Pass 14 14 100% 14 28 28 100% 27 6 6 100% 6 11 11 100% 11 59 59 100% 58 All Magnets -- White Females Math No. Tested % Pass 14 100% 28 100% 6 100% 11 100% 59 98% Sixty-one white third-grade females took the MPT reading and math subtests. Ninety-seven percent (97%, or 59 of 61) passed both MPT subtests. Table 9 below shows MPT test results for white females at each magnet school. Magnet School Williams Carver Gibbs Booker Totals Table 9 Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing--- White Females N=61 Reading Math No. No. No. No. Pass Tested ~ 0 Pass Pass Tested 15 16 94% 15 16 13 13 100% 13 13 10 10 100% 13 13 21 22 95% 21 22 59 61 97% 59 61 All Magnets -- Others % Pass 94% 100% 100% 95% 97% Only five students were classified \"others\" for the magnet schools. Data categories for race are determined by ADE. All third-grade students classified as \"others\" who took the MPT passed all of the tests. MPT test results for \"others\" are shown in Table 10 on the following page. 31 Magnet No. School Pass Williams 1 Carver 1 Gibbs 3 Booker -- Total 5 Grade Six Table 10 Third Grade Reading\\Math Percent Passing--others N=S Reading No. No. Tested % Pass Pass 1 100% 1 1 100% 1 3 100% 3 -- -- -- 5 100% 5 Math No. Tested % Pass 1 100% 1 100% 3 100% -- -- 5 100% State-wide, 29,962 sixth-grade students were administered the MPT. The exam consisted of the following subtests: reading, math, language arts, science, and social studies. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the students tested received a passing score or higher on the reading subtest. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the schools state-wide had a student pass rate of eighty-five percent (85%) or higher in reading. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the sixth-grade students tested passed the math subtest. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the schools state-wide had a student pass rate of eighty-five percent (85%) or higher in math. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of sixth graders tested received passing scores on the language arts subtest. Only seventy percent (70%) of the schools state-wide had a student pass rate of eighty-five percent (85%) or higher in language arts. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of students tested passed the science subtest. Only seventy-four percent (74%) of the schools state-wide had a student pass rate of eighty-five percent (85%) or higher in science. Eighty-six percent (86%) of sixth graders tested received a passing score on the social studies subtest. Only sixtythree percent (63%) of the schools state-wide had a student pass rate of eighty-five percent (85%) or higher in social studies. The percent passing for sixth-grade students in each of the Pulaski County Interdistrict Schools is compared to the percent passing for sixth-grade students state-wide. Tables and graphs are presented for visual comparison. A final 32 Graph 9 Booker Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Booker Percent Passing Compared to state Percent Passing N=78 Percent 120\"5~-------------------, 100\"5 80\"5 60\"5 40% 20% 0% Reading Matn L~ge Science Soc Stud - State m BoOker MPT Graon g carver Elementary School The percent passing for Carver sixth-grade students was below the state required eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on three of the MPT subtests. Only seventy-six percent (76%) of the students tested passed the language arts subtest, seventy-seven percent (77%) passed the science subtest and seventy-eight percent (78%) passed the social studies subtest. Ninety-six percent (96%) of the sixth-grade students passed the reading subtest while eighty-six percent (86%} passed the math subtest. Table 12 on the following page reflects the test results for Carver sixth-grade students on all MPT subtests. 34 comparison of percent passing for all magnet sixth-grade students is compared to the percent passing for all sixthgrade students state-wide in Table 15 and Graph 13. Booker Elementary School The percent passing for Booker Elementary sixth-grade students was above the ADE required eighty-five percent (85%) on all MPT subtests except science. Table 11 below reflects the percent of students passing each subtest. Test data are disaggregated by race and sex for black and white students. Test results for students categorized as \"other\" were not reported by gender. Table 11 Booker Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Percent Passing by Race\\Sex N=78 Students Read Math Lang Sci SocStd By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass State: All students 96 93 88 89 86 Booker: All Students 99 97 87 82 92 Black Males 95 90 70 65 80 Black Females 100 100 84 76 92 White Males 100 100 100 100 100 White Females 100 100 100 96 100 *Others 100 100 100 100 100 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores are not reported by gender. Black males fell below the ADE required eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on language, science and social studies subtests. Black females fell below by only one percentage point in language at eighty-four percent (84%). Black females were also below the required pass rate on the science subtest with seventy-six percent (76%) receiving passing or better scores. White males, white females and students categorized as \"others\" received passing or higher scores on all MPT subtests. Graph 9 on the following page shows the percent passing for all groups at Booker Elementary compared to all students state-wide. 33 Tabla 12 carver Elementary sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Languaga Arts\\Science\\Social Studies Percent Passing by Race\\Sex N:94 students Read Math Lang Sci SocStd By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass State: All Students 96 93 88 89 86 carver: All Students 96 86 76 77 78 Black Males 86 68 61 68 61 Black Females 100 83 65 52 61 White Males 100 100 86 97 97 White Females 100 100 100 97 97 *Others 100 100 100 100 100 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores are not reported by gender. The pass rate for black males was substantially below the ADE required pass rate of eighty-five percent (85%) on four of the five subtests. Black females were also below the required pass rate on four of the subtests, although the pass rate for the math subtest was just below the required pass rate at eighty-three percent (83%). All other groups were above the eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate. Graph 10 below reflects the comparison of the pass rates for all students at Carver with the pass rates for all students state-wide. Graph 10 Carver Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies carver Percent Passing Compared to state Percent Passing N:94 Percent 120$ 96$96$ 100$ 80$ 60$ 40$ 20$ 0$ Reeo1ng Marn L~ Science Soc sruo  Stare m ear- MPT Graen 10 35 Gibbs Elementary School The percent passing for all sixth graders at Gibbs Elementary was at or above the ADE required pass rate of eighty-five percent (85%) on all subtests except social studies. Table 13 below shows the percent passing for all students at Gibbs Elementary. Test data are disaggregated by race and sex for black and white students. Table 13 Gibbs Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Percent Passing by Race\\Sex N=41 students Read Math Lang Sci SocStd By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % State: All students 96 93 88 89 Gibbs: All Students 98 90 90 85 Black Males 100 100 100 90 Black Females 100 91 82 73 White Males 100 100 100 100 White Females 94 81 88 88 * Others -- -- -- -- * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores are not reported by gender. No students tested in this category. Pass 86 83 100 64 100 81 -- Black females were below the ADE required eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on three of the subtests (language arts, science, social studies). White females were below the state required pass rate on two subtests (math, social studies). Graph 11 on the following page reflects the comparison of pass rates for Gibbs sixth-grade students with the pass rates for sixth-grade students state-wide. 36 Graph 11 -Gibbs Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social Studies Gibbs Percent Passing Compared to State Percent Passing N:41 Percenr 120'11 96'1198'11 100'11 80'11 80'11 40'11 20'11 0'11 Reaa1ng Mains Language Science Soc 511..d - Stare - GitlOS MPT Graen 11 Williams Elementary School The percent passing for Williams sixth-grade students was above the ADE required eighty-five percent (85%) on all MPT subtests except science. The percent passing for Williams students are compared with the percent passing state-wide in Table 14 below. Table 14 Williams Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social Studies Percent Passing by Race\\Sex N:65 Students Read Math Lang Sci SocStd By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass State: All Students 96 93 88 89 86 Williams: All Stud. 100 97 92 82 88 Black Males 100 100 100 93 100 Black Females 100 95 86 62 67 White Males 100 100 93 87 100 White Females 100 92 92 92 92 *Others 100 100 100 100 100 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores are not reported by gender. 37 Passing rates for males for both races and for white females were above the ADE mandated eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate for all subtests. Passing rates for black females were below eighty-five percent (85%) on two subtests (science and social studies). comparisons of passing rates for all Williams students and for students disaggregated by race and sex with passing rates for all students state-wide are shown in Graph 12 below. Graph 12 Williams Elementary Sixth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Williams Percent Passing Compared to state Percent Passing N:65 Pe\u0026lt;cent 120'llr-----------------~ 80'll 80'll 40'll 20'll O'll Reea,ng Marn Language Sc,ence Soc StUJ - Stare m Willi lWT'S MPT Graon 12 All Magnets The percent passing for all Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools was above the ADE required eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate for all MPT subtests except science. The percent passing both language arts (84.9%) and social studies (84.9%) subtests was at the eighty-five percent (85%) level. Table 15 and Graph 13 on the following page compare the pass rate for all magnet school sixth graders with the pass rate for sixth graders state-wide. 38 Table 15 ,. Sixth Grade--All Magnets Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Percent by Magnet School N:278 Magnet Read Math Lang Sci SocStd School % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % State-wide 96 93 88 89 All Magnets 98 92 85 81 Booker 99 97 87 82 Carver 96 86 76 77 Gibbs 98 90 90 85 Williams 100 97 92 82 Graph 13 sixth Grade--All Magnets Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social studies Magnet School Percent Compared to State Percent N:278 Percent 120$ 96'l,98'l, 100'1, 80$ 60$ 40$ 20$ O'l, Reao,ng Marn Language sc,enca Soc Stud  Stare m All Magnets MPT Graon 13 39 Pass 86 85 92 78 83 88 Grade Eight state-wide, 29,323 eighth graders were administered the MPT. The exam consisted of the following subtests: reading, math, language arts, science, and social studies. Ninety-five percent (95%, or 268 of 282) of the eighth-grade students at Horace Mann Junior High magnet school passed the MPT subtest in reading. State-wide, the reading subtest pass rate was the same--ninety-five percent (94.5%, or 27,705 of 29,323). Eighth-grade students had a pass rate of eighty-seven percent (87%, or 246 of 282) at Mann Junior High on the math subtest. The state pass rate was ninety-five percent (95.1%, or 27,883 of 29,323). Ninety-three percent (93%, or 262 or 282) of Mann Junior High eighth graders passed the MPT language arts subtest. Statewide, the language arts subtest pass rate was the same-ninety- three percent (92.6%, or 27,159 of 29,323). Mann eighth graders had a pass rate of seventy-one percent (71%, or 201 of 282) on the MPT subtest in science. The state pass rate was eighty-six percent (86.4%, or 25,338 of 29,323). Only eighty percent (80%, or 225 of 282) of the eighth-grade students at Mann Junior High had passing scores on the social studies subtest. State-wide, the pass rate was eighty-six percent (85.8%, or 25,150 of 29,323). A total of 29,323 eighth graders state-wide were administered the Minimum Performance Tests. Better than ninety-six percent (96.7%) passed. At Mann Junior High 284 students were administered the MPT with ninety-seven percent (97%) passing. Percent passing information is based on completion of three administrations of the MPT. Mann eighth-grade students had a pass rate of more than eighty-five percent on the reading, math and language subtests. Their scores on the science and social studies subtests were below the ADE mandated passing rate of eighty-five percent (85%). Graph 14 on the following page compares MPT subtest scores of Mann eighth graders with subtest scores for eighth graders state-wide. 40 Graph 14 ,. Eighth Grade--All Magnets Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social Studies Magnet School Percent Compared to State Percent N:278 Percent 120-r.,--------------------, 100$ 80'1, 60'1, 40'1, 20'1, O'l, Aeaa,ng Meth Language sc,erce Soc Stud  Total - Stare B Merv, MPT Graen 14 * Percent passing information is based on completion of three administrations of the MPT. Table 16 below compares MPT subtest scores of Mann eighth graders disaggregated by race and sex with subtest scores for eighth graders state-wide. Table 16 Mann Junior High Eighth Grade Reading\\Math\\Language Arts\\Science\\Social Studies Percent Passing By Race\\Sex N:284 Students Read Math Lang Sci SocStd By Race\\Sex % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass % Pass State: All Students 95 95 93 8~ 86 Mann: All Students 95 87 93 71 80 Black Males 91 82 82 61 73 Black Females 94 80 94 50 70 White Males 95 93 93 88 87 White Females 100 97 100 95 92 *Others 100 83 100 67 100 * Total of all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores are not reported by gender. 41 Passing rates for white males and females were above the ADE mandated eighty-five percent (85%) pass rate on all subtests. Passing rates for black males were below the mandate on all subtests except reading. Black females passed both the reading and language arts subtests at rates higher than the mandate. Passing rates for \"other\" students were below eighty-five percent (85%) on two subtests (math and science). SUMMARY (MPT) Grade Three Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School third-grade students passed the MPT subtests for reading (93%) and math (93%) at or above the 85 percent pass rate mandated by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). All Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools had third grade pass rates on all subtests at or above the ADE mandated 85 percent pass rate. All student groups disaggregated by sex\\race had pass rates at or above 85 percent except for the following: Black males Gibbs Elementary: reading subtest (78%) Booker Elementary: math subtest (78%) Black Females -- Gibbs Elementary: math subtest (71%) Grade six All Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools had pass rates for sixth grade students at or above the ADE mandated 85 percent pass rate for the reading and math subtests. Only Carver Elementary was below the 85 percent pass rate on the language subtest. Only Gibbs Elementary was at or above the 85 percent pass rate on the science subtest. Booker Elementary and Williams Elementary were at or above the 85 percent pass rate on the social studies subtest. When disaggregated by race\\sex the following were noted below the 85 percent pass rate: Black Males -- Booker Elementary: language subtest (70%) science subtest (65%) socstud subtest (80%) Carver Elementary: math subtest (68%) 42 language subtest (61%) science subtest (68%) socstud subtest (61%) Black Females Booker Elementary: science subtest (76%) Carver Elementary: math subtest {83%) language subtest (65%) science subtest (52%) socstud subtest (61%) Gibbs Elementary: language subtest {82%) science subtest (73%) socstud subtest (64%) Williams Elementary: science subtest {62%) socstud subtest (67%) White Females -- Gibbs Elementary: math subtest {81%) socstud subtest {81%) Grade Eight The pass rate for all students at Mann Junior High School was above the state mandated 85 percent pass rate on all MPT subtests. When disaggregated by race\\sex the following were noted as below the ADE 85 percent pass rate requirement. Black Males -- Mann Junior High: math subtest (82%) language subtest (82%) science subtest {61%) socstud subtest {73%) Black Females -- Mann Junior High: math subtest (80%) CONCLUSIONS science subtest (50%) socstud subtest (70%) * With few exceptions Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School third-grade students passed the Minimum Performance Tests at or above the ADE mandated 85 percent pass rate. * Pulaksi County Interdistrict Magnet Schools achieved the required 85 percent ADE mandated pass rate for six grade students. Black students tended to have lower scores on the language, science and social studies subtests. * Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School junior high students achieved the ADE 85 percent pass rate on the Minimum Performance Test. Black males were slightly below the 85 percent pass rate on the language and math subtests (82%). Science and social studies scores were well below the 85 percent mandated for black males. Black females were slightly below the 85 percent pass rate on the math subtest {80%). Subtest scores for science and social studies were well below the mandated 85 percent pass rate for black females. 43 Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT 6) The Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT 6) was administered to all students in grades 4, 7 and 10 at the six magnet schools: Carver, Booker, Williams and Gibbs (elementary schools)\nHorace Mann (junior high)\nand Parkview (high school). State mean scores were provided by the Department of Education. NCE Scaled Scores were provided for state means on each of the subtests (reading, math, language, total battery, science, social studies) and for the complete battery. The demographics provided for disaggregating the variables were school, grade, sex and race. Data analyses of mean scores are organized by school, grade, race and sex for each of the subtests and the complete battery. Data analyses include the following comparisons: * Magnet mean scores by grade (all groups) to state mean scores (all groups) * Magnet mean scores: - by sex (males, females) to state mean scores (all groups) - by sex (males, females) to mean scores, magnet schools only - by race (all schools\\by school) to state mean scores - mean scores by race\\sex (by school) to state mean scores by race\\sex The directional hypothesis for data analysis is as follows: Magnet school mean scores will be higher than state mean scores. The 1-Tailed, t-Test for Independent Samples was selected to measure the significance of score differences between groups. In the tables that follow, the \"Diff.\" column represents the actual differences in the state mean scores and the magnet school mean scores. In addition, mean score differences are presented as \"t-Values\" which were computed using the 1-Tailed t-Test. The PC microcomputer utilizing the software package \"Statistics with Finesse\" was selected to analyze the data. The probability level of .05 with a critical t-Value of 1.65 was chosen to denote statistical significance. The \"Prob.1- Tail\" column presents the statistical probability of a mean score difference occurring by chance. When the probability value is .05 or less (p=/\u0026lt;.05), chances are 95 out of 100 that the differences are statistically significant. If mean score differences are significant the evaluator accepts the directional hypothesis: Magnet school mean scores are higher than state mean scores. When mean score differences are computed at probability levels greater than .05 (p\u0026gt;.05), or when negative t-Values are computed, the hypothesis must be rejected. 44 FINDINGS Grade Four Grade four magnet school mean scores compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders are presented in Table 17 and Graph 15 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests) : N = 336 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social Studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 TABLE 17 Comparison of Grade Four St we Mean Scores and Grade Four Magnet School Mean Scores Magnet state Prob Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 59.61 55.7 3.913 3.854 .0001 Math 68.97 60.2 8.772 7.928 .0001 Language 64.50 57.5 7.001 7.060 .0001 Tot Battery 65.26 58.2 7.063 6.715 .0001 Science 62.51 59.1 3.409 3.417 .0004 Soc Studies 64.52 59.0 5.523 5.009 .0001 Comp Battery 65.50 58.8 6.696 6.366 .0001 Magnet school mean scores were higher than state mean scores on all subtests. Magnet mean scores were higher on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher {p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 15 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 17. 45 ~ GRAPH 1S Comparison Of Grade Four Magnet Mean Scores and Grade Four State Mean Scores NC Scores 100.-------------------- 90-- ----------------------1 80l----------- 70f---- 60 50 40 30 20 10 o._.-=\"'-- AMdino Matn Lanouege Tot Battery Science Soc Stud Como Batt - Magnet Mean - State Mean Graph 15 Breakdown by School Mean scores for each of the four magnet elementary schools are compared below with state mean scores in each of the test areas. carver Elementary School carver Elementary School mea~ scores compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders are presented in Table 18 and Graph 16 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 94 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social Studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 46 TABLE 18 Comparison of Grade Four State Mean Scores and Grade Four carver Elementary School Mean Scores carver State Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value Reading 59.63 55.7 3.924 2.220 Math 71. 64 60.2 11.44 5.481 Language 67.91 57.5 10.41 17.27 Tot Battery 66.82 58.2 8.623 4.608 Science 65.18 59.1 6.081 18.18 Soc Studies 65.23 59.0 6.231 3.157 Comp Battery 67.12 58.8 8.319 4.438 Prob. 1Tail .0144 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0008 .0011 .0001 carver Elementary School mean scores were higher than state mean scores on all subtests. Carver scores were higher on both the total battery and the complete battery. Carver mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) for all tests. Graph 16 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences noted in Table 18. GRAPH 16 comparison Of carver Elementary Mean Scores and state Mean Scores--Grade Four NCE Scores 100,---------------~ go-------- RNotno watr, ~ Tot 8anwy ~ Soc SIUCI COfflD Sau - c.- Meen m Stare .....,, Graen 16 47 Williams Elementary School Williams Elementary School mean scores compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders are presented in Table 19 and Graph 17 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 91 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 TABLE 19 Comparison of Grade Four State Mean Scores and Grade Four Williams Elementary School Mean Scores Williams state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 64.70 55.7 8.997 5.061 .0001 Math 74.70 60.2 14.50 8.259 .0001 Language 70.80 57.5 13. 30 7.952 .0001 Tot Battery 71. 98 58.2 13.78 8.254 .0001 Science 67.41 59.1 8.312 5.124 .0001 Soc studies 69.52 59.0 10.52 5.851 .0001 Comp Battery 71. 86 58.8 13.06 7.937 .0001 Williams Elementary School mean scores were higher than state mean scores on all subtests, as well as on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) for all tests. Graph 17 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 19. 48 ,. GRAPH 17 Comparison ot Williams Elementary Mean Scores and State Mean Scores--Grade Four NCE Scores 100,--------------------, 90 80 70 60 50 20 10 0 Graph 17 RMa1no Matri Lan\nuaoe Tot 8atte,y Science Soc Stud Comp Bart  Wllllams Mean m Stare Mean Booker Elementary School Booker Elementary School mean scores compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders are presented in Table 20 and Graph 18 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 89 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social Studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 49 ,. TABLE 20 Comparison of Grade Four State Mean Scores and Grade Four Booker Elementary School Mean Scores Booker state Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value Reading 53.97 55.7 -1. 734 -0.804 Math 59.27 60.2 -0.934 -0.421 Language 54.46 57.5 -3.039 -1. 559 Tot Battery 56.15 58.2 -2.054 -0.944 Science 55.23 59.1 -3.873 -1. 958 Soc Studies 54.48 59.0 -4.522 -1.991 Comp Battery 56.04 58.8 -2.757 -1.274 Prol). lTail .2117 .3375 .0613 .1738 .0267 .0248 .1031 Booker Elementary School mean scores were lower than the state mean scores on all subtests and on both batteries. Since t-Values are all negative, the directional hypothesis must be rejected. None of the score differences are statistically significant (p=/\u0026lt;.05). Graph 18 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 20. Graph 18 comparison of Booker Elementary Mean Scores and state Mean Scores--Grade Four NCE Scores 100,--------------------, 90 so 60 so 20 10 o.___...,,.\"'- Aead1ng Graph 18 Mar\" Lanouaoe Tot Batte,y Science Soc Stud Como Bait - Bool\u0026lt;sr Mean m State Mean 50 Gibbs Elementary School ,. Gibbs Elementary School mean scores compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders are presented in Table 21 and Graph 19 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests) : N = 62 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social Studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 TABLE 21 Comparison of Grade Four State Mean Scores and Grade Four 4 Gibbs Elementary School Mean Scores Gibbs State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 60.24 55.7 4.542 1.918 .0299 Math 70.46 60.2 10.26 4.093 .0001 Language 64.50 57.5 6.998 3.344 .0007 Tot Battery 66.13 58.2 7 .927 3.267 .0009 Science 61.72 59.1 2.616 1.098 .1383 Soc Studies 70.53 59.0 11.53 4.745 .0001 Comp Battery 67.27 58.8 8.466 3.442 .0005 Gibbs Elementary School mean scores were higher than state mean scores on all subtests and on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet school mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) than state mean scores for all tests except science. Graph 19 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 21. 51 Graph 19 comparison of Gibbs Elementary Mean scores and State Mean Scores--Grade Four NCE Scores 100,----------------------. 90~---- --- 90~------------'~--------- 10 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 19 Reeci,no Ma,,, Un\nuaoe Tcr Battery Scaerce Soc Stud Come, B  tt - Gibes Masn m State Maen comparison by Sex -- Females Grade four magnet school mean scores for females compared with state means for all fourth graders are presented in Table 22 and Graph 20 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests) : N = 182 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - M1=tth: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social Studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 52 TABLE 22 Comparison of Grade Four State Mean Scores and Grade Four Magnet School Mean Scores--FEMALES Mag. State Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value Reading 59.83 55.7 4.126 3.157 Math 67.03 60.2 6.831 4.892 Language 66.65 57.5 9.151 7.370 Tot Battery 65.09 58.2 6.886 5.148 Science 60.48 59.1 1.376 1.113 Soc Studies 62.98 59.0 3.982 2.877 Comp Battery 64.70 58.8 5.901 4.518 Prob. lTail .0009 .0001 .0001 .0001 .1335 .0023 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for fourth grade females were higher than state mean scores on all subtests and on both batteries. Magnet mean scores were significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) than state mean scores on all subtests except science and significantly higher on both batteries. Graph 20 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 22. Graph 20 Comparison of Grade Four Magnet Mean Scores--FEMALES and Grade Four state Mean Scores NCE Scores 100,----------------------, 90 --- ----  -------\n80 ---- - - 701------\n=.---\n=------------ 40 20 10 0 Graph 20 Aeao1no Marn Lanouaoe Tor Bartery Science Soc Stud Como Batt - Magnet Mean - Female ~ State Mean - Total 53 comparison By Sex,. -- Males Grade four magnet school mean scores for males compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders are presented in Table 23 and Graph 21 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests): N = 153 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 TABLE 23 Comparison of Grade Four State Mean Scores and Grade Four Magnet School Mean Scores--MALES Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 59.75 55.7 4.050 2.605 .0050 Math 71.19 60.2 10.99 6.248 .0001 Language 61. 72 57.5 4. 218 2.702 .0038 Tot Battery 65.33 58.2 7 .131 4.262 .0001 Science 64.69 59.1 5.590 3. 512 .0003 Soc Studies 66.13 59.0 7.131 4.061 .0001 Comp Battery 66.22 58.8 7.422 4.372 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for fourth-grade males were higher than state mean scores on all subtests. Magnet mean scores were higher on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) for all tests. Graph 21 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 23. 54 Graph 21 comparison ~f Grade Four Magnet Mean Scores--MALES and Grade Four State Mean Scores NCE Scores 100,---------------------, 90~-----------------ao \u0026gt;--------------------1 701---- 60 50 30 20 0 Graph 21 Aeedino Mau, L.ano1.1aoe Tot Battery Science Soc Stud Comp Batt - Magnet Mean - Male  State Mean - Total comparison by Sex -- Magnet Only Grade four magnet school mean scores are compared by sex in Table 24 and Graph 22 that follow. The number tested (N) for males and females are as follows: Females Males N = 182 N = 153 TABLE 24 Comparison of Grade Four Magnet School Females and Grade Four Magnet School Males Test Mag.Mean-Female Mag.Mean-Male Diff. Reading 59.83 59.75 .08 F Math 67.03 71.19 4.16 M Language 66.65 61. 72 4.93 F Tot Battery 65.09 65.33 .24 M Science 60.48 64.69 4.21 M Soc Studies 62.98 66.13 3.15 M Comp Battery 64.70 66.22 1.52 M 55 Magnet school mean scores for fourth-grade males were higher than for fourth-grade females on all tests except reading and language. The difference between male and female scores was barely discernable on the reading subtest and the total battery. Graph 22 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 24. Graph 22 comparison of Grade Four Magnet Mean scores by Sex NCE Scores 100..------------------- 90t------------------- ---l 80f------------------------l 701---- 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 22 Readino Mart'! La~ Tot Battery Science Soc Stuo Coma Batt - Male m Female Comparison by Race -- Blacks Grade four magnet school mean scores for blacks compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders are presented in Table 25 and Graph 23 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests): N = 179 State - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social Studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 56 TABLE 2S Comparison of Grade Four state Mean Scores and Grade Four Magnet School Mean Scores--BLACKS Mag. state Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value Reading 51.33 55.7 -4.369 -3.800 Math 59.32 60.2 -0.881 -0.658 Language 58.23 57.5 0.730 0.590 Tot Battery 55.94 58.2 -2.258 -1. 833 Science 53.12 59.1 -5.984 -5.269 Soc Studies 54.98 59.0 -4.020 -2.945 Comp Battery 55.63 58.8 -3 .170 -2.631 Prob. 1Tail .0001 .2556 .2779 .0342 .0001 .0018 .0046 Magnet school mean scores for black fourth graders were lower than state mean scores on all subtests except language. Magnet school mean scores were lower on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet school mean scores were not statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on any tests. Graph 23 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 25. Graph 23 Comparison of Grade Four Magnet Mean Scores--BLACKS and Grade Four State Mean Scores NCE Scores ,oo.--------------- 90 80 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 23 ~eaa,n\nMath Language T01 Batlery Sc,.-ice Soc Slua Como Batt - Magnet Mean - Black ~ S1818 Mean - Total 57 comparison by Race -- Whites Grade four magnet school mean scores for whites are compared with state mean scores for all fourth graders and presented in Table 26 and Graph 24 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests): N = 151 state - Reading: N = 31,509 - Math: N = 31,518 - Language: N = 31,527 - Total Battery: N = 31,460 - Science: N = 31,540 - Social Studies: N = 31,537 - Complete Battery: N = 31,447 TABLE 26 Comparison of Grade Four state Mean Scores and Grade Four Magnet Mean Scores--WHITES Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 69.58 55.7 13.88 10.18 .0001 Math 79.52 60.2 19.32 13. 95 .0001 Language 71.34 57.5 13.84 9.775 .0001 Tot Battery 75.68 58.2 17.48 12.83 .0001 Science 72. 90 59.1 13.80 10.99 .0001 Soc Studies 75.00 59.0 16.00 11. 90 .0001 Comp Battery 76.40 58. 8 17.60 13.33 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for white fourth graders were higher than state mean scores on all subtests. Magnet mean scores were higher on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) for all subtest and both batteries. Graph 24 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 26. 58 Graph 24 comparison ot Grade Four Magnet Mean Scores--WHITES and Grade Four State Mean Scores NCE Scores 100.----------------------, oo ~ ------ ------------i 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 24 AN01no Math Language Tot Sattwy Science Soc Stu:2 Como S  n  Magnet Mean - White m Stare Mean - Total comparison By Race -- Magnet Only Grade four magnet school mean scores are compared by race in Table 27 and Graph 25 that follow. The number tested (N) for blacks and whites are as follows: Blacks Whites N = 179 N = 151 TABLE 27 Comparison of Grade Four Magnet School Blacks and Grade Four Magnet School Whites Test Mag.Mean-Black Mag.Mean-White Dift. Reading 51.33 69.58 18.25 Math 59.32 79.52 20.20 Language 58.23 71.34 13.11 Tot Battery 55.94 75.68 19.74 Science 53.12 72. 90 19.78 Soc Studies 54.98 75.00 20.02 Comp Battery 55.63 76.40 20.77 59 w w w w w w w Magnet school mean scores for whites were higher than magnet school mean scores for blacks on all subtests and on both batteries. Graph 25 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 27. Graph 25 Comparison of Grade Four Magnet Mean Scores by Race NCE Scores 100,----------------------, 90 ~ -- ao---- 10 60 50 40 30 20 ANdino Mat1, Languaga Tot Battery Scaenc Soc Stud Como Batt - Black ~ Whrte Graph 25 Like Group Comparisons Fourth-grade magnet school mean scores, disaggregated by sex and race, are compared below with fourth-grade state mean scores disaggregated by the same criteria. All comparisons to this point have been with state means disaggregated by grade only. 60 Black Males Grade four magnet school mean scores for black males compared with state mean scores for fourth-grade black males are presented in Table 28 and Graph 26 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests): N = 72 State - Reading: N = 3,510 - Math: N = 3,510 - Language: N = 3,509 - Total Battery: N = 3,497 - Science: N = 3,512 - Social Studies: N = 3,514 TABLE 28 Like Group Comparisons--By Race and Sex Grade Four Black Males--state vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 49.09 41.67 7.415 3.935 .0001 Math 59.08 49.18 9.898 4.242 .0001 Language 51.13 47.80 3.331 1.932 .0286 Tot Battery 52.83 44.85 7.979 4.025 .0001 Science 53.92 45.22 8.272 4.252 .0001 Soc Studies 53.85 45.98 7.870 3.229 .0009 Magnet school mean scores for fourth-grade black males were higher than state mean scores for fourth-grade black males on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 26 that follows presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 28. 61 Graph 26 Lika-Group Comparison--Mean Scores Grade Four Black Males--Magnet vs state NCE Scores 100,-------------------- 90---------eo---- ------------ ro --- -- -- - --- - --- -----' 80 50 30 20 10 0 -/'IQ Marft Lan\n_., Tor Barewy Sc:oarca Soc SIUOIN - Magnet Mean - 4,8 ,M m Stare Mean - 4,8 ,M Graph 26 Black Females Grade four magnet school mean scores for black females compared with state mean scores for fourth-grade black females are presented in Table 29 and Graph 27 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests) : N = 107 state - Reading: N = 3,673 - Math: N = 3,674 - Language: N = 3,676 - Total Battery: N = 3,670 - Science: N = 3,677 - Social Studies: N = 3,676 62 r TABLE 29 Like Group comparisons--by Race and sex Grade Four Black Females--State vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 52.84 46.51 6.333 4.414 .0001 Math 59.48 50.87 8.611 5.365 .0001 Language 63.00 55.40 7.607 4.886 .0001 Tot Battery 58.04 49.79 8.246 5.335 .0001 Science 52.86 46.98 5.884 4.250 .0001 Soc studies 55.74 48.25 7.491 4.697 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for fourth-grade black females were higher than state mean scores for fourth-grade black females on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) for all tests. Graph 27 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 29. Graph 27 Like Group comparison--Mean scores Grade Four Black Females--Magnet vs state NCE Scores 100.------------------~ 9Qf--------- Ruono Math Lanouaoe Tot Battery Science Soc Stuo ... - Magnet Meen - 4,8,F - S1818 Meen - 4,8,F Graph 27 63 White Males Grade four magnet school mean scores for white males compared with state mean scores for fourth-grade white males are presented in Table 30 and Graph 28 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests): N = 78 State - Reading: N = 10,778 - Math: N = 10,782 - Language: N = 10,787 - Total Battery: N = 10,763 - Science: N = 10,789 - Social Studies: N = 10,785 TABLE 30 Like Group Comparisons--by Race and Sex Grade Four White Males--State vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 68.99 57.56 11.43 5.921 .0001 Math 81. 30 62.98 18.32 9.309 .0001 Language 70.68 55.90 14.78 7.151 .0001 Tot Battery 76.00 59.65 16. 35 8.296 .0001 Science 74.29 63.23 11.06 5.800 .0001 Soc Studies 76.52 63.01 13.51 7.393 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for fourth-grade white males were higher than state mean scores for fourth-grade white males on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=\\\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 28 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 30. 64 Graph 28 Like- Group Comparison--Mean Scores Grade Four White Males--Magnet vs State NCE Scores 100,---------------------. 00-------------------1 ao~--- 10 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 RMia,ng ._..u, l..anQuao Tor a.,_,.., Sciiric Soc Stl.ldiM _.. Magner Mean 4,W,M - Stare Mean 4,W,M Graph 28 White Females Grade four magnet school mean scores for white females compared with state mean scores for fourth-grade white females are presented in Table 31 and Graph 29 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet Schools - (all tests): N = 73 State - Reading: N = 10,576 - Math: N = 10,574 - Language: N = 10,578 - Total Battery: N = 10,561 - Science: N = 10,584 - Social Studies: N = 10,584 65 TABLE 31 Like Group Comparisons--By Race and Sex Grade Four White Females--state vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 70.21 61.17 9.037 4.672 .0001 Math 77.62 63.64 13. 98 7.221 .0001 Language 72.06 63.08 8.978 4.635 .0001 Tot Battery 75.34 63.52 11.82 6.266 .0001 Science 71.41 63.25 8.162 5.093 .0001 Soc studies 73.37 62.81 10.56 5.347 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for fourth-grade white females were higher than state mean scores for fourth-grade white females on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 29 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 31. Graph 29 Like Group Comparison--Mean scores Grade Four White Females--Magnet vs State NCE Scores 100r------------------~ 90 ------ 80 -  ..... . 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 29 Aeaa,no ~ath Lanouaoe Tot Battery Science Soc Studies - Magnet Mean - 4,W,F g State Mean - 4,W,F 66 FINDINGS Grade Seven Horace Mann Junior High School Grade seven magnet school mean scores compared with state mean scores for all seventh graders are presented in Table 32 and Graph 30 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and the magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 286 State - Reading: N = 30,724 - Math: N = 30,722 - Language: N = 30,723 - Total Battery: N = 30,655 - Science: N = 30,718 - Social Studies: N = 30,715 - Complete Battery: N = 30,632 TABLE 32 Comparison of State Mean Scores and Grade seven Magnet School Mean Scores Magnet State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 55.67 52.2 3.468 2.948 .0017 Math 53.04 54.6 -1.562 -1.435 .0762 Language 61.05 56.0 5.047 4. 55.8 .0001 Tot Battery 57.30 55.1 2.193 1.927 .0275 Science 58.99 56.6 2.392 2.109 .0179 Soc Studies 57.86 55.6 2.255 1.885 .0302 Comp Battery 57. 72 55.5 2.216 1.922 .0278 Magnet school mean scores were higher than state mean scores on all subtests except math. Magnet mean scores were higher on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher {p=/\u0026lt;.05) for reading, language, total battery, science and complete battery. Graph 30 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 32. 67 ~ Graph 30 Comparison of Grade seven Magnet Mean Scores and Grade Seven state Mean Scores NCE Scores 100,--------------------, 00--------------------1 ao------------------ 70--------OOr------- - 50 RNdinQ Marh Language Tor Battery Scitne Soc Stud Comp Bart - Magnet Mean a State Mean Graph 30 Comparison By Sex -- Females Grade seven magnet school mean scores for females compared with state mean scores for all seventh graders are presented in Table 33 and Graph 31 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 159 State - Reading: N = 30,724 - Math: N = 30,722 - Language: N = 30,723 - Total Battery: N = 30 ,655 - Science: N = 30,718 - Social Studies: N = 30,715 - Complete Battery: N = 30,632 68 TABLE 33 Comparison of Grade seven State Mean Scores and Grade seven Magnet Mean Scores--FEMALES Mag. state Test Kean Kean Diff. t-Value Reading 55.67 52.2 3.473 2.264 Math 52.60 54.6 -2.004 -1.482 Language 63.96 56.0 7.964 5.583 Tot Battery 58.08 55.1 2.984 2.058 Science 57.91 56.6 1. 305 0.933 Soc Studies 57.99 55.6 2.392 1.627 Comp Battery 58.15 55.5 2.648 1.819 Pro:b. lTail .0125 .0702 .0001 .0206 .1761 .0529 .0354 Magnet school mean scores for seventh-grade females were higher than state mean scores for all seventh graders on all subtests except math. Magnet mean scores were higher on both batteries. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) for reading, language, total battery and complete battery. Graph 31 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 33. Graph 31 Comparison of Grade Seven Magnet Kean Scores--FEMALES and Grade seven state Mean Scores NCE Scores ,oo~----------------- 90 80 70 - --eo - ---so - 40 30 20 10 0  Magner Mean - Fema1e - Stare Mean - Total Graph 31 69 comparison by sex -- Males Grade seven magnet school mean scores for males compared with state mean scores for all seventh graders are presented in Table 34 and Graph 32 that follow. The number tested (N} for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests}: N = 127 State - Reading: N = 30,724 - Math: N = 30,722 - Language: N = 30,723 - Total Battery: N = 30,655 - Science: N = 30,718 - Social studies: N = 30,715 - Complete Battery: N = 30,632 TABLE 34 Comparison of Grade Seven state Mean Scores and Grade seven Magnet Mean scores--MALES Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 55.66 52.2 3.461 1.891 .0305 Math 53.59 54.6 -1.008 -0.567 .2857 Language 57.40 56.0 1. 395 0.825 .2055 Tot Battery 56.30 55.1 1.204 0.664 .2538 Science 60.35 56.6 3.753 2.018 .0229 Soc Studies 57.68 55.6 2.083 1.056 .1465 Comp Battery 57.17 55.5 1.674 0.903 .1841 Magnet school mean scores for seventh-grade males were higher than state mean scores for all seventh graders on all subtests except math. Magnet mean scores were slightly higher on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05} for reading and science only. Graph 32 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect differences presented in Table 34. 70 ~ Graph 32 comparison of Grade Saven Magnet Mean Scores--MALES and Grade Saven State Mean Scores /\\ICE Scar. 100,---------------------. 901------------------eot------------------- i 70t-------------------i 80 i--:==------- 50 40 30 20 10 0 Q-aph 32 Comparison by Sex -- Magnet Only Grade seven magnet school mean scores are compared by sex in Table 35 and Graph 33 that follow. The number tested (N) for males and females are as follows: Females - Males - N = 159 N = 127 TABLE 35 Comparison of Grade Seven Magnet School Females and Grade seven Magnet School Males Test Mag.Mean-Female Mag.Mean-Male Diff. Reading 55.67 55.66 .01 F Math 52.60 53.59 .99 M Language 63.96 57.40 6.56 F Tot Battery 58.08 56.30 1.78 F Science 57.91 60.35 2.44 M Soc Studies 57.99 57.68 .31 F Comp Battery 58.15 57 .17 .98 F 71 Magnet school mean scores for seventh-grade males were higher than female mean,scores in math and science. Mean scores were almost equal in reading. Female mean scores were higher than male mean scores in language, total battery, social studies and complete battery. Graph 33 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 35. Graph 33 Comparison of Grade Seven Magnet Mean Scores by Sex NCE Scores 100.------------------~ oo------------- -------1 so-------------------~ 70---------------- ----1 80r-~----~ ~~ 50 40 30 20 10 0 ~ino Math Laf\"IQUage rot Battery Science Soc Stud Como Batt - Mate m Female Graph 33 Comparison By Race -- Blacks Grade seven magnet school mean scores for blacks are compared with state mean scores for all seventh graders in Table 36 and Graph 34 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 187 State - Reading: N = 30,724 - Math: N = 30,722 - Language: N = 30,723 - Total Battery: N = 30,655 - Science: N = 30,718 - Social Studies: N = 30,715 - Complete Battery: N = 30,632 72 ,. TABLE 36 comparison of Grade seven state Mean Scores and Grade seven Magnet School Mean Scores--BLACKS Mag. State Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value Reading 49.29 52.2 -2.907 -2.216 Math 47. 36 54.6 -7.243 -6.110 Language 56.67 56.0 0.668 0.504 Tot Battery 51.22 55.1 -3.881 -3.007 Science 52.60 56.6 -3.999 -3.170 Soc Studies 51.42 55.6 -4.181 -3.194 Comp Battery 51.21 55.5 -4.287 -3.313 Prob. lTail .0140 .0001 .3073 .0015 .0009 .0008 .0006 Magnet school mean scores for seventh-grade blacks were higher than state mean scores for all seventh graders in one subtest, language. Magnet mean scores were not statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) than state mean scores on any subtests or batteries. Graph 34 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 36. Graph 34 Comparison of Grade seven Magnet Mean Scores--BLACKS and Grade seven Magnet Mean Scores NCE Scores 100,---------------------, 90 - ----- 80 ~ -------- ro----------------- so~-----=~-------==----=-----:-=---i 50 20 10 o'--\"..,,,~--=_, Aeac:11no ~eth language Tor Batty Sc,ence Soc Stua Como Batt - Magnet Mean - Bleck - State Mean - Total Graph 34 73 comparison by Ra~e -- Whites Grade seven magnet school mean scores for whites compared with state mean scores for all seventh graders are presented in Table 37 and Graph 35 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 97 State - Reading: N = 30,724 - Math: N = 30,722 - Language: N = 30,723 - Total Battery: N = 30,655 - Science: N = 30,718 - Social Studies: N = 30,715 - Complete Battery: N = 30,632 TABLE 37 Comparison of Grade Seven State Mean Scores and Grade Seven Magnet School Mean scores--WHITES Mag. state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 67.87 52.2 15.69 8.689 .0001 Math 64.01 54.6 9.412 5.287 .0001 Language 69.51 56.0 13. 51 7.763 .0001 Tot Battery 68.98 55.1 13. 88 8.141 .0001 Science 71. 37 56.6 14.77 8.719 .0001 Soc Studies 70.36 55.6 14.76 7.782 .0001 Comp Battery 70.25 55.5 14.75 8.750 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for grade seven whites were higher tests. higher than state mean scores for all seventh graders on all Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly (p=/\u0026lt;.05) than state means on all tests. Graph 35 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 37. 74 Graph 3S comparison ~t Grade Seven Magnet Mean scores--WHITES and Grade seven State Mean Scores NCE Scores 100,---------------------, 90------------ ao--- 50 40 30 20 0 ReadinQ Matl'\\ Lanouage Tot Bartv Saenca Soc Stud Comp Batt - Magnet Mean - White m State Mean - Total Graph 35 Comparison by Race -- Magnet Only Grade seven magnet school mean scores are compared by race in Table 38 and Graph 36 that follow. The number tested (N) for blacks and whites are as follows: Black White N = 187 N = 97 TABLE 38 Comparison Of Grade Seven Magnet School Blacks and Grade seven Magnet School Whites Test Mag.Mean-Black Mag.Mean-White Ditt. Reading 49.29 67.87 18.58 Math 47.36 64.01 16.65 Language 56.67 69.51 12.84 Tot Battery 51.22 68.98 17.76 Science 52.60 71. 37 18.77 Soc Studies 51.42 70.36 18.94 Comp Battery 51.21 70.25 19.04 75 w w w w w w w Grade seven magnet school mean scores for whites were higher than mean scores --for blacks in all subtests and both batteries. Graph 36 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 38. Graph 36 Comparison ot Grade Seven Magnet Mean Scores DY Race NCE Scores 100,-------------------~ 90 -ino Marn ~ Tot 8atrwy Saenc Soo Stud Como Batt - Black m White Graph 36 76 Like Group comp~ison Grade seven magnet school mean scores, disaggregated by sex and race, are compared with grade seven state mean scores disaggregated by the same criteria. All comparisons to this point have been with state means disaggregated by grade only. Black Males Grade seven magnet school mean scores for black males compared with state mean scores for seventh-grade black males are presented in Table 39 and Graph 37 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet schools are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 80 State - Reading: N = 3,250 - Math: N = 3,248 - Language: N = 3,251 - Total Battery: N = 3,239 - Science: N = 3,243 - Social Studies: N = 3,243 TABLE 39 Like Group Comparisons--Race and sex Grade seven Black Males--state vs Magnet Mean scores Mag. state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-value 1-Tail Reading 48.58 38.75 9.826 4.664 .0001 Math 46.45 42.79 3.656 1.886 .0315 Language 52.82 45.59 7.228 3.306 .0007 Tot Battery 49.27 41. 63 7.640 3.596 .0003 Science 52.53 44.91 7.616 3.638 .0002 Soc studies 50.01 43.87 6.139 2.842 .0028 Grade seven magnet school mean scores for black males were higher than state mean scores for seventh-grade black males on every subtest and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) than state means on all tests. 77 Graph 37 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 39. Graph 37 Like Group Comparison--Mean Scores Grade Seven Black Ma.les--Magnet vs State NCE Scores 100,------------------~ 90 ao~--- ----- 70f--------eo--- 50 ~-,---,,~ 40 30 20 10 0 ----------- Reading Mat!'\\ Lanouao Tot Battwy Scene Soc StuelJel - Magnet MeM - 7,8 ,M - State Mean - 7,8,M Graph 37 Black Females Grade seven magnet school mean scores for black females compared with state mean scores for seventh-grade black females are presented in Table 40 and Graph 38 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests) : N = 107 State - Reading: N = 3,307 - Math: N = 3, 3_02 - Language: N = 3,303 - Basic Battery: N = 3,291 - Science: N = 3,303 - Social Studies: N = 3,302 78 ,. TABLE 40 Like Group comparisons--Race and sex Grade seven Black Females--state vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. State Prol:\u0026gt;. Test Mean Mean Ditt. t-Value lTail Reading 49.83 42.16 7.668 4.582 .0001 Math 48.04 46.04 1.997 1.345 .0907 Language 59.55 54.80 4.747 2.982 .0018 Tot Battery 52.68 47.17 5.506 3.450 .0004 Science 52.66 45.25 7.406 4.743 .0001 Soc Studies 52.47 47.07 5.404 3.331 .0006 Grade seven magnet school mean scores for black females were higher than state mean scores for seventh-grade black females on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) than state mean scores on all tests. Graph 38 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 40. Graph 38 Like Group comparison--Mean Scores Grade Seven Black Females--Magnet vs state NCE Scores 100 ,----------------------, 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 - 20 10 0 Graph 38 --------------- - Read1no Math Lanouaoe Tot Battery Seia\"ICe Soc Sludtes - Magnet Mean - 7,8,F ~ Slate Mean - 7,8,F 79 White Males Magnet school mean scores for grade seven white males compared with state mean scores for seventh-grade white males are presented in Table 41 and Graph 39 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 45 State - Reading: N = 10,210 - Math: N = 10,213 - Language: N = 10,214 - Total Battery: N = 10,190 - Science: N = 10,215 - Social Studies: N = 10,215 TABLE 41 Like Group Comparisons--Race and sex Grade Seven White Males--state vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 68.10 54.95 13.15 4. 921 .0001 Math 66.37 57.32 9.047 3.300 .0010 Language 65.42 53.60 11. 82 5.059 .0001 Tot Battery 68.70 56.55 12.15 4.802 .0001 Science 74.45 61.44 13. 01 4.988 .0001 Soc Studies 71.52 58.27 13. 25 4.294 .0001 Grade seven magnet school mean scores for white males were higher than state mean scores for seventh-grade white males on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 39 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 41. 80 Graph 39 Lik Group Comparison--Mean Scores Grade seven White Males--Magnet vs State NCE Scores 100,--------------------, 90.,__ __ _ ___ _ BO 70 60 50 R....:t1ng Mau, LanQuaoe Tot 8atf9f'y Science Soc Stud..,.  Magner Mean  7,W,M ~ Stare Mean  7,W,M Graph 39 White Females Grade seven magnet school mean scores for white females compared with state mean scores for seventh-grade white females are presented in Table 42 and Graph 40 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 52 State - Reading: N = 9,969 - Math: N = 9,967 - Language: N = 9,968 - Total Battery: N = 9,959 - Science: N = 9,970 - Social Studies: N = 9,970 81 ,. TABLE 42 Like Group comparison--Race and sex Grade Seven White Females--state vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 67.70 57.28 10.42 4.216 .0001 Math 61.98 58.65 3.325 1.438 .0782 Language 73.05 62.77 10.28 4.187 .0001 Tot Battery 69.21 60. 92 8.292 3.563 .0004 Science 68.71 59.26 9.446 4.358 .0001 Soc Studies 69.35 59.63 9.716 4.153 .0001 Grade seven magnet school mean scores for white females were higher than state mean scores for seventh-grade white females on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 40 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 42. Graph 40 Like Group comparison--Mean Scores Grade seven White Females--Magnet vs state NCE Scores 100,------------------~ 901----------------------1 801------ eo 50 30 20 10 0 Graph 40 Reading Math Lanoueo Tor Baoery Sc.ience Soc Studies - Magnet Mean - 7,W,F g State Mean - 7,W,F 82 Grade Ten FINDINGS Parkview senior High School Grade ten magnet school mean scores compared with state mean scores for all tenth graders are presented in Table 43 and Graph 41 that follow. The number tested (N) for state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 270 State - Reading: N = 27,081 - Math: N = 27,128 - Language: N = 27,103 - Total Battery: N = 27,005 - Science: N = 27,125 - Social Studies: N = 27,100 - Complete Battery: N = 26,954 TABLE 43 Comparison of State Mean Scores and Grade Ten Magnet School Mean scores Magnet state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 57.57 50.8 6. 774 6.971 .0001 Math 56.48 52.0 4.476 4.149 .0001 Language 63.10 56.0 7.097 7.392 .0001 Tot Battery 60.60 53.7 6.902 6.923 .0001 Science 60.31 54.6 5.706 5.101 .0001 Soc Studies 58.89 52.4 6.492 5.658 .0001 Comp Battery 61.07 54.1 6.966 6.669 .0001 Magnet school mean scores were higher than state mean scores on all subtests. Magnet mean scores were higher on both the total battery and the complete battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) for all tests. Graph 41 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 43. 83 Graph 41 Comparison ot Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores and Grade Ten State Mean Scores NCE Scores 100,---------------------, 90 ao - -- ---- 70 \u0026gt;-------- 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 41 RHdu\"IQ Matl'\\ Lanouaoe Tor Battery Science Soc Stud Como Baff - Magner Mean m Stare \"'49111' comparison by Sex -- Females Grade ten magnet school mean scores for females compared with state mean scores for all tenth graders are presented in Table 44 and Graph 42 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 153 State - Reading: N = 27,081 - Math: N = 27,128 - Language: N = 27,103 - Total Battery: N = 27,005 - Science: N = 27,125 - Social studies: N = 27,100 - Complete Battery: N = 26,954 84 ,. TABLE U Comparison of Grade Ten state Mean Scores and Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores--FEMALES Mag. State Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value Reading 57.01 50.8 6.210 5.005 Math 57.21 52.0 5.208 3.758 Language 65.82 56.0 9.820 7.712 Tot Battery 61.63 53.7 7.929 6.067 Science 57.02 54.6 2.424 1. 791 Soc Studies 57.52 52.4 5.121 3.844 Comp Battery 60.88 54.1 6.778 5.152 Prob. lTail .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0377 .0001 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for grade ten females were higher than state mean scores for all tenth graders on all subtests and on both batteries. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 42 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 44. Graph 42 comparison of Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores--FEMALES and Grade Ten State Mean Scores NCE Scores 100.--------------------, 90 so - ----------------- 70 ~ - - -----------------------i 60 50 30 20 10 0 Graph 42 Fleadf'IQ Math Lanouaoe Tot Bartery Science Soc Stud Como Batt - Magnet Mean - Female m State Mean - Total 85 comparison by Sex -- Males Grade ten magnet school mean scores for males compared with state mean scores for all tenth graders are presented in Table 45 and Graph 43 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 117 State - Reading: N = 27,081 - Math N = 27,128 - Language: N = 27,103 - Total Battery: N = 27,005 - Science: N = 27,125 - Social Studies: N = 27,100 - Complete Battery: N = 26,954 TABLE 45 Comparison of Grade Ten state Mean Scores and Grade Ten Magnet School Mean Scores--MALES Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 58.31 50.8 7 .511 4.842 .0001 Math 55.52 52.0 3.520 2.058 .0209 Language 59.54 56.0 3.537 2.525 .0065 Tot Battery 59.26 53.7 5.559 3.615 .0002 Science 64.60 54.6 9.998 5.523 .0377 Soc Studies 60.69 52.4 8.285 4.166 .0001 Comp Battery 61.31 54.1 7. 211 4.255 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for grade ten males were higher than state mean scores for all tenth graders on all subtests and on both batteries. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) than state mean scores for all tests. Graph 43 following presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 45. 86 Graph 43 comparison ot Grade Ten Magnet Mean scores--MALES and Grade Ten state Mean scores NCE Scores 100,---------------------, 00 - ------ 80 70 60 50 40 30 10 0 ------- - lnQ Marn Lana,.,- Tor Bartery Soonca Soc Stud Como Barr  Magnet Mean - Male  Stare Mean - Total Graph 43 comparison by Sex -- Magnet Only Grade ten magnet school mean scores are compared by sex in Table 46 and Graph 44 that follow. The number tested (N) for females and males are as follows: Females Males N = 153 N = 117 TABLE 46 Comparison Ot Grade Ten Magnet School Females and Grade Ten Magnet School Males Test Mag.Mean-Female Mag.Mean-Male Oitt. Reading 57.01 58.31 1.30 Math 57.21 55.52 1.69 Language 65.82 59.54 6.28 Tot Battery 61.63 59.26 2.37 Science 64.60 60.69 3.91 Soc Studies 57.52 60.69 3 .17 Comp Battery 60.88 61. 31 .43 87 M F F F F M M Magnet school mean scores for grade ten females were higher than mean scores for grade ten males on the math, language and science subtests and on the total battery. Male mean scores were higher on the reading subtest and on the complete battery. Graph 44 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 46. Graph 44 comparison of Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores by Sex NCE Scores 100.-------------------~ 90 r------------- - --- ---l 80 r------ --------------l 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ReaCJit'IQ Marn Lanouaoe Tot Sartery Science Soc Stud Como Batt - Mele ffl Female Graph 44 comparison by Race -- Blacks  Grade ten magnet school mean scores for blacks compared with state mean scores for all tenth graders are presented in Table 47 and Graph 45 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 152 State - Reading: N = 27,081 - Math: N = 27,128 - Language: N = 27,103 - Total Battery: N = 27,005 - Science: N = 27,125 - Social Studies: N = 27,100 - Complete Battery: N = 26,954 88 TABLE 47 Comparison of Grade Ten State Mean Scores and Grade Ten Magnet School Mean Scores--BLACKS Mag. State Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value Reading 51.11 50.8 0.306 0.256 Math 50.66 52.0 -1.336 -1.. 013 Language 58.54 56.0 2.540 2.123 Tot Battery 54.28 53.7 0.584 0.484 Science 52.07 54.6 -2.535 -1. 958 Soc Studies 51.00 52.4 -1.401 -1.049 Comp Battery 53.67 54.1 -0.435 -0.355 Prob. lTail .3990 .1563 .0177 .3145 .0261 .1479 .3615 Magnet school mean scores for grade ten blacks were higher than state mean scores for all tenth graders on the science and language subtests. The magnet school mean scores are statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on both these subtests. Magnet mean scores were lower than state mean scores on reading, math and social studies subtests and on both batteries. Graph 45 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 47. Graph 4S Comparison of Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores--BLACKS and Grade Ten State Mean Scores NCE Scores ,oor-------------------, 90 so i---------------? o i--------- -----------------1 60 t------- 50 30 20 10 0 Reading Math Lanouaoe Tot Battery Scaenc Soc Stud Como Batt  Magnet Mean - Black ~ State Mean - Total Graph 45 89 comparison by Ra~e -- Whites Grade ten magnet school mean scores for whites compared with state mean scores for all tenth graders are presented in Table 48 and Graph 46 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 114 State - Reading: N = 27,081 - Math: N = 27,128 - Language: N = 27,103 - Total Battery: N = 27,005 - Science: N = 27,125 - Social Studies: N = 27,100 - Complete Battery: N = 26,954 TABLE 48 Comparison of Grade Ten state Mean Scores and Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores--WHITES Mag. state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 65.91 50.8 15.11 11.85 .0001 Math 63.98 52.0 11. 98 7.513 .0001 Language 68.77 56.0 12.77 8.915 .0001 Tot Battery 68.65 53.7 14.95 10.84 .0001 Science 70.89 54.6 16.29 11. 09 .0001 Soc Studies 68.81 52.4 16.41 10.41 .0001 Comp Battery 70.48 5:.t .1 16.38 11. 71 .0001 Magnet school mean scores for grade ten whites were higher than state mean scores for all tenth graders on all subtests and on both batteries. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 46 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 48. 90 Graph 46 Comparison rof Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores--WBITES and Grade Ten State Mean Scores NCE Scores 100,------------------~ 90 - -- eo- --------- - - -- 10 60 50 40 :JO 20 10 0 RMdu\"IQ Matf'I laf\"IQUaQe Tot Battwy Saence Soc Stud Como Batt - Magnet Mean - White m State Mean - Total Graph 46 Comparison by Race -- Magnet Only Grade ten magnet school mean scores are compared by race in Table 49 and Graph 47 that follow. The number tested (N} for blacks and whites are as follows: Black White N = 152 N = 114 TABLE 49 Comparison Between Magnet School Grade Ten Blacks and Grade 10 Magnet School Whites Test Mag.Mean-Black Mag.Mean-White Ditf. Reading 51.11 65.91 14.80 Math 50.66 63.98 13 .32 Language 58.54 68.77 10.23 Tot Battery 54.28 68.65 14.37 Science 52.07 70.89 18.82 Soc Studies 51.00 68.81 17.81 Comp Battery 53.67 70.48 16.81 91 w w w w w w w Magnet school mean scores for whites were higher than magnet school mean scores for blacks on all subtests and on both batteries. Graph 47 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 49. Graph 47 Comparison ot Grade Ten Magnet Mean Scores by Race NCI: Scores 100,----------------------, 90 \u0026gt;---------- ao---------------------j 70r-------=,._ eo so 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 47 ANCJinQ ~au, Lanouaoe Tot Battery Science Soc Stud Como Ban  Blad\u0026lt; R White 92 Like Group comparison r Grade ten magnet school mean scores, disaggregated by sex and race, are compared with tenth-grade state mean scores disaggregated by the same criteria. All comparisons to this point have been with state mean scores disaggregated by grade only. Black Males Grade ten magnet school mean scores for black males compared with state mean scores for tenth-grade black males are presented in Table 50 and Graph 48 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 71 State - Reading: N = 2,636 - Math: N = 2,644 - Language: N = 2,637 - Total Battery: N = 2,624 - Science: N = 2,643 - Social Studies: N = 2,638 TABLE 50 Like Group Comparison--Race and sex Grade Ten Black Males--State vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 51.39 38.94 12.45 7.446 .0001 Math 49.58 42.16 7.423 3.599 .0003 Language 55.75 46.33 9.416 5.566 .0001 Tot Battery 52.98 42.08 10.90 6.402 .0001 Science 55.23 44.26 10.97 5.605 .0001 Soc studies 52.05 40.83 11.22 4.934 .0001 Grade ten magnet school mean scores for black males were higher than state mean scores for tenth-grade black males on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher on all tests. Graph 48 on the following page presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 50. 93 Graph 48 Likw Group Comparison - Mean Scores Grade Tan Black Males - Magnet vs State NCE Scores 100.---------------------, 00--------- -----------i ao ro-- ao 50 40 30 20 10 0 Graph 48 Black Females Read1no Marn Lanoua\nr Tot Sattwy Saenc Soc Studiea - Magnet Mean  10,8,M m State Mean  10,8 ,M Grade ten magnet school mean scores for black females compared with state mean scores for tenth-grade black females are presented in Table 51 and Graph 49 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school -are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 81 State - Reading: N = 2,898 Math: N = 2,899 - Language: N = 2,896 - Total Battery: N = 2,886 - Science: N = 2,897 - Social Studies: N = 2,891 94 TABLE 51 Like Group Comparison--Race and Sex Grade Ten Black Females--state vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value 1Tail Reading 50.85 41.89 8.963 5.269 .0001 Math 51.61 42.58 9.032 5.335 .0001 Language 60.99 53.73 7.259 4.407 .0001 Tot Battery 55.43 45.95 9.480 5.568 .0001 Science 49.29 40.50 8.788 5.258 .0001 Soc Studies 50.01 39.39 10.69 6.997 .0001 Grade ten magnet school mean scores for black females were higher than state mean scores for tenth-grade black females on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 49 following presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 51. Graph 49 Like Group Comparison--Mean Scores Grade Ten Black Females--Magnet vs state NCE Scores 100,------------------------, 90 - - - -------- ------------ , 80 70 eo - --- -so 40 30 20 0 Graph 49 Aea\u0026lt;11no Math Language Tot Battery Setence Soc Studtea - Magnet Mean - 10,B.F ~ State Mean - 10,8,F 95 White Males Grade ten magnet school mean scores for white males compared with state mean scores for tenth-grade white males are presented in Table 52 and Graph 50 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 45 State - Reading: N = 8,510 - Math: N = 8,519 - Language: N = 8,512 - Total Battery: N = 8,481 - Science: N = 8 I 514 - Social Studies: N = 8,508 TABLE 52 Like Group Comparison--Race and sex Grade Ten White Males--State vs Magnet Mean scores Mag. state Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Value lTail Reading 68.92 52.27 16.65 7.371 .0001 Math 64.60 55.00 9.598 3.870 .0002 Language 65.07 53.71 11.36 5.161 .0001 Tot Battery 68.78 54.54 14.24 6.180 .0001 Science 78.74 61. 05 17.69 8.120 .0001 Soc Studies 73.46 56.57 16.89 6.381 .0001 Grade ten magnet school mean scores for white males were higher than state mean scores for tenth-grade white males on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 50 in the following page presents mean score  differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 52. 96 Graph so Lik.-Group Comparison--Maan Scores Grade Tan White Males--Magnat vs State NCE Scores 100.--------------------, 90 t--------------------- aor---------------,=---ro 80 50 40 30 20 10 0 AMd,ng ~au, Language Tot Battwy Science Soc Studi.a - Magret Mean 10,W,M - State Mean 10 ,W,M Graph 50 White Females Grade ten magnet school mean scores for white females compared with state mean scores for tenth-grade white females are presented in Table 53 and Graph 51 that follow. The number tested (N) for the state and magnet school are as follows: Magnet School - (all tests): N = 69 State - Reading: N = 8,420 - Math: N = 8,435 - Language: N = 8,427 - Total Battery: N = 8,402 - Science: N = 8,436 - Social Studies: N = 8,430 97 TABLE 53 Like Group Comparison--Raca and Sex Grade Tan White Females--stata vs Magnet Mean Scores Mag. State Prob. Test Mean Mean Diff. t-Valua lTail Reading 63.94 55.46 8.476 5.760 .0001 Math 63.57 54.88 8.691 4.155 .0001 Language 71.19 62.43 8.756 4.768 .0001 Tot Battery 68.57 58.91 9.660 5.596 .0001 Science 65.78 54.95 10.83 6.305 .0001 Soc Studies 65.78 55.33 10.45 5.570 .0001 Grade ten magnet school mean scores for white females were higher than state mean scores for tenth-grade white females on all subtests and on the total battery. Magnet mean scores were statistically significantly higher (p=/\u0026lt;.05) on all tests. Graph 51 below presents mean score differences on a bar graph. Visual comparisons in the bar graph reflect the differences presented in Table 53. Graph S1 Like Group Comparison--Mean scores Grade Ten White Females--Magnet vs state NCE Scores 100 ..----------------------, eo------ -- ---------- --1 so----- Reading Math Language Tot Battery Science Soc Sludtel - Magnet Mean - 10,W,F m State Mean - 10,W,F Graph 51 98 SUMMARY MAT 6 Grade Four Pulaski county Interdistrict Magnet School mean scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test {MAT) were significantly higher than state mean scores on the Total and Complete Batteries, as well as, on all subtests. Carver and Williams Elementary Schools mean scores were significantly higher than the state mean scores on both batteries and on all subtests. Mean scores at Gibbs Elementary were significantly higher than state mean scores on both batteries and on all subtests except science. ~ Mean scores at Booker Elementary School were below state mean 7 scores. Magnet school mean scores for males were significantly higher than state mean scores on all subtests. Magnet mean scores for females were significantly higher than state mean scores on all subtests except science. Magnet school mean scores for black students were lower than state mean scores for all students, however, magnet mean scores for black students were significantly hig er tan sffteniean scores for black students. Magnet school mean scores for white students were significantly higher than the state mean scores for white students. Magnet school mean scores for white students were higher than magnet school mean scores for black students. Grade Seven -- Horace Mann Junior High School Pulaski County Interdistrict-Magnet School student mean scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test {MAT) were significantly higher than state mean scores on both the total and complete batteries and on all subtests except science. Magnet school mean scores for females were higher on all subtests except math. Magnet school mean scores were significantly higher for reading, language, total battery and complete battery. Magnet school mean scores for males were higher than state mean scores on all subtests except math. Magnet school mean scores were significantly higher on reading and science subtests. Magnet school mean scores for black students were higher than 99 ~ state mean scores for all students only on the language subtest, however\nmagnet school mean scores for black students were significantly higher than state mean scores black students. for Magnet school mean scores for white students were significantly higher than state mean scores for all students. Magnet school means scores for white students were significantly higher than state mean scores for white students. Grade Ten -- Parkview Senior High School Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School mean scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test {MAT) were significantly higher than state mean scores on both the total and complete batteries and on all subtests. Magnet school mean scores were significantly higher than state mean scores for both males and females. Magnet school mean scores for black students were significantly higher than state mean scores for all students on language and science subtests. Magnet school mean scores for black students were lower than state mean scores for all students on other subtests. Magnet school mean scores for black students were significantly higher than state mean scores for black students on both batteries and on all subtests. Magnet school mean scores for white students were above the state mean scores for all students and for white ~tudents on both batteries and all subtests. CONCLUSIONS * Magnet school mean scores- for fourth grades were significantly higher than the state mean scores. * Magnet school mean scores for white fourth-grade students are higher than mean scores for all students and for white students. * Magnet school mean scores for black fourth-grade students are lower than mean scores for all students, however, magnet school mean scores for black students are higher than state mean scores for black students. * Magnet school mean scores for white fourth-grade students are higher than magnet school mean scores for black fourth-grade students. 100 * Magnet school mean scores for seventh-grade students are significantly1ligher than state mean scores for seventhgrade students. * Magnet school mean scores for black students are higher than state mean scores for black students. * Magnet school mean scores for white students are higher than state mean scores for white students. * Magnet school mean scores for tenth-grade students are significantly higher than state mean scores for tenthgrade students. * Magnet school mean scores for black tenth-grade students were higher than state mean scores on language and science subtest for all students and higher on all subtests than state means scores for black students. * Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School students had higher performances than their state counterparts. 101 American College Test (ACT) The ACT was administered to those Parkview seniors who registered to take it. Mean scores for Parkview students for 1992 were provided by the Little Rock School District. The ADE provided mean scores for seniors across the state for 1991. These mean scores were as follows: Parkview Seniors - Mean ACT Score - 1992 State Seniors - Mean ACT Score - 1991 20.0 19.9 Parkview seniors as a group scored virtually identically to seniors across the state on the ACT. Both the state and Parkview mean scores are in the 52nd percentile nationally. Parkview scores ranged from a low of 12 to a high of 32. state scores were further disaggregated by whether or not the tested students had taken a recommended college preparatory core curriculum. The Parkview scores were not disaggregated by this variable. The state mean scores for these two groups of students were as follows: Completed Core Curriculum - 1991 Did Not Complete Core Curriculum - 1991 102 21.8 18.6 SECTION III Desegregation PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Desegregation BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives in Expected Outcomes, #3, (A, B, and C), listed below: 3. To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of the magnet schools toward the \"complete desegregation\" goal of the project. A. What is the social interaction between and within the disaggregated groups by race, sex, and socio-economic status? Additional variables of solidarity and isolation will be studied for students, staff and parents. B. Are there evidences of stereotyping by students i.e., graffiti and name calling? C. What are the reflections of the academic and professional interactions between the building administrators and the teaching staff during staff meetings, between teachers and students during class interactions, and between the building administrative staff, teachers and students during school related activities? METHODOLOGY After notification by the MRC of acceptance of this proposal, the research team began immediately to develop instruments and procedures to collect data for objective #3. A review of the literature was conducted for identifying and developing instruments appropriate for collecting data appropriate for assessing the social interactions of students, teachers and staff. Sociometric techniques were utilized to examine the social structure and social status of individuals within a group (Borg and Gall, 1979). One such honored technique is the sociogram which is a graphic illustration of interpersonal relationships within a group (Almy, Cummingham et al, 1975). As demonstrated by Sprite and Griggs, 1976, the sociogram functions, then, as \"a measure of social acceptance because it is based on student's selection of companions for group activities.\" During the second half of the twentieth century, numerous researchers have confirmed in their studies 103 concerning schools the usefulness of sociograms in quantifying stud~nt relationships that may have escaped the scrutiny of teachers: (For representative examples, see Tabe, Brady, Robinson, and Vickers, 1951\nGronlund, 1950\nLindzey and Borgatta, 1954\nLane and Beauchamp, 1955\nBlyth, 1958\nTabe, 1962\nRemmers, 1963\nEpstein, 1968\nWhite 1969\nKennedy, 1971\nCornelius, 1973\nBonney, 1974\nGade, 1977\nMarkus and Barasch, 1982\nClark and Ayer, 1988). A sociogram was developed by the project staff to assess student interaction relative to social classroom activities (choosing students to sit by), academic activities (choosing students to work with) and socialization on the playground (choosing students to play with). The sociogram was administered in the fall and spring of the 1991-92 school year. Administration dates were scheduled during the same week. This report reflects the total results of the first (fall) administration of the sociogram. Only data from the spring administration of the sociogram for those items for which a change in significance was noted from the fall to spring administration are shown. The Chi-Square Test for Independence was chosen to assess and evaluate the significance of student choice patterns. The PC computer utilizing the software package \"Statistics with Finesse\" was selected to analyze the data yielded by the sociograms. Two site visits to various magnet schools were made by the director and one team member prior to the visit made by a seven-member evaluation team. A pre-visit orientation was scheduled at Arkansas State University with the executive director of the MRC, the project evaluation team, Dean of the College of Education, administrators from another district with magnet schools, and office staff from the MRC and office of Educational Research and Services at ASU. The seven-member evaluation team consisted of professionals from Arkansas State University. Team members possessed competencies in specialty areas of elementary and early childhood education, secondary education, educational administration, and program evaluation. The purpose of the site visits was to collect data .relevant to the project objectives. Each magnet school was visited by a team of two professionals. The project director visited all magnet school sites during the two days scheduled for the team visits. Visits lasted from 4 to 5 hours, and included observations of classroom and non-classroom activities. Forms were developed to record and codify data collected during the observation visits. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Site data were collected by observation to assess the social and interactive behavior of 104 teachers, staff, and students in and out of the classroom. The first part o~ this report reflects the sociogram data and analysis, relative to Objective 3A. The second part of the report reflects the observations and findings of the project evaluation team relative to Objectives 3B and JC. FINDINGS Sociograms A total of 914 sociograms were administered to students in the magnet schools. The sociograms were administered during the same week by all the magnet schools in the fall of 1991. The sociograms were administered to 214 black males, 294 black females, 202 white males and 204 white females. During the spring of 1992 sociograms were administered to 925 students in the magnet schools. There were 216 black males, 288 black females, 210 white males and 211 white females. Three categories were identified to assess student behaviors. The categories were designed to allow students to express choice or preferences in situations of academic activity (work with) play activity (play with), and general social activity (sit near). Students were asked to name five students in their class with whom they would choose to\n(1) work with, (2) play with, and (3) sit near. A copy of the sociogram is included in the appendix of this report. Variables disaggregated for analyzing the results of the sociograms were sex and race. Data were analyzed on the basis of student choices listed for the opposite race in each of the three categories. The PC computer using the \"Statistics with Finesse\" software was chosen to examine the data. The Chi-Square Test of Independence was chosen to conduct the statistical analysis. The .05 level was chosen to denote significance in determining variable independence. Complete results of the fall administration of the sociogram are presented. Only changes in socio-metric measures (from dependent to independent\\from independent to dependent) that resulted from the second (Fall to Spring) administration are noted. Numerals for tables presenting data from the spring administration are followed by \"(s).\" Work With students were asked to choose five classmates with whom they would like to work. Tables 1-8 reflect the data for \"Work With\" as provided by analysis of the sociograms from the fall administration. 105 Disaggregated by'Race -- Black Race compared to White Race The data analysis (fall) revealed a significant difference in student choices when disaggregated by race. A Chi-Square of 15.3971 was computed which yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1287 and a Probability of 0.0088. A higher proportion of black students, at 16.5 percent, chose to work with no students of the opposite race than did white students at 11.8 percent. The percentage of total students choosing to work with at least one student of the opposite race was 85.6 percent. More than sixty percent of the students chose at least two students of the opposite race to work with. Analysis of data from the spring administration reflected a change in student choice patterns. A Chi-Square of 8.2023 was computed which yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0938 and a Probability of 0.1454 (not significant at the .05 level). Data are presented in Table 1 and Table 1 (s) that follow. TABLE 1 Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Blacks Compared to Whites Number of students of Opposite Race Chosen o 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Race 84 116 127 112 53 16 508 % 16.5 22.8 25.0 22.0 10.4 3.1 100.0 White Race 48 112 128 85 27 6 406 % 11. 8 27.6 31. 5 20.9 6.7 1.5 100.0 Total 132 228 255 197 80 22 914 % 14.4 24.9 27.9 21.6 8.8 2.4 100.0 Chi-square Test of Independence Number of Observations 914 Chi-Square 15.3971 Contingency Coefficient 0.1287 Cramer's Phi Prime 0.1298 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1276","title":"Parent Committee: Questionnaire, \"can no longer 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"],"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 planning","Parents"],"dcterms_title":["Parent Committee: Questionnaire, \"can no longer 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/1276"],"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":["37 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1570","title":"\"Voluntary Interdistrict Coordinating Council for the Settlement Agreement''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":["North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1990-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Standards","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School attendance","School discipline","School buses","School employees","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Student activities","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Voluntary Interdistrict Coordinating Council for the Settlement Agreement''"],"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/1570"],"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":["40 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_831","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, order; 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":["1990-08-03","1990-08-20"],"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","School districts","School integration","Education--Finance","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, order; 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/831"],"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\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_397","title":"Desegregation: ''Little Rock School District (LRSD) Desegregation Plan Status Report for Second Semester 1989-90 School Year,'' Exhibits 6-17","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":["1990-07-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Education--Evaluation","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation: ''Little Rock School District (LRSD) Desegregation Plan Status Report for Second Semester 1989-90 School Year,'' Exhibits 6-17"],"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/397"],"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\nFILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.S. DISTRI\"coUFIT --------- - - ------------- cASTPPN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. JUL 1 0 1990 CARLn.^^^^ 9LERK By:------------------------------ DEP. CLERK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN STATUS REPORT FOR SECOND SEMESTER 1989-90 SCHOOL YEAR INTRODUCTION Attached hereto as Exhibits are memoranda detailing the status of steps taken to implement the Court-approved Desegregation Plan in the LRSD for the second semester of the 1989-90 school year. This report continues from the LRSD Desegregation plan Status Report for First Semester 1989-90 School Year filed on March 1, 1990 and the LRSD Major Enhancement Schools First Year Report, 1988-89, filed on March 5, 1990. The Exhibits submitted are as follows: 1. Exhibit 6 is a Desegregation Plan Status Report cover- ing Early Childhood Education. In particular, the Exhibit provides updated information on the Four-Year-Old Incentive School Program, the City-Wide Early Childhood Education Program, and the HIPPY program. -1-2. Exhibit 7 contains the status report for the Summer Learning Program. m X X 2 o 3. Exhibit 8 provides an update on School Operations, referred to as Division of Schools. 4. Exhibit 9 is the Desegregation Plan Status \u0026gt; I Report from Pupil Services. 5. Exhibit 10 contains the status reports for the various D3 content areas of the desegregation plan. The areas covered include: English/Communications/Journalism, Multi-Curriculum Development, Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL), Music/Art, m X X 2 Mathematics, Science, Social Studies/Foreign Language and Reading. 6. Exhibit 11 constitutes the Desegregation Plan update regarding staff Development activities in the LRSD. m X X 2 7. Exhibit 12 constitutes the Gifted and Talented Program UI update. 8. Exhibit 13 constitutes the 1989-90 status update regarding Federal Programs. m X X 2 at 9. Exhibit 14 constitutes the Desegregation Plan Status Report for the 1989-90 school year covering Vocational Education. 10. Exhibit 15 constitutes the m X X ro Desegregation Plan Status fl Report on Library Media Services. 11. Exhibit 16 constitutes the Desegregation Plan Status Report for Special Education. m X X 2 00 pi 12. Exhibit 17 constitutes the Desegregation Plan Status Report concerning Parent Involvement/Community Linkages LRSD. in the T1 X X 2 ( caR\u0026gt;lyo(\\lnd.ar -2-Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201-3493 Attorneys for the Little Rock School District i BY\nz, JERRY L. MALONE Bar I.D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent to the following 1990^^^ U'S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this \" list of day of July, L. MALONE J John V. Walker, Esquire Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Paul L. Cherry, Esquire Attorney General's Office Heritage West Building 201 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 m X X E o tD m X X 3 m X X E in m X X 03 o, m X I ro Norman Chachkin, Esquire Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson St., 16th Floor Steve Fedo, Esquire Neal, Gerber \u0026amp; Eisenberg New York, New York 10013 208 South LaSalle Chicago, Illinois 60604 Richard W. Roachell, Esquire Mitchell \u0026amp; Roachell 1014 West Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 H. William Allen, Esquire Attorney at Law 200 West Capitol, Suite 1200 Little Rock, AR 72201 cBTolynf kind. sr -3- I i  I m X X 5 00 X X E \u0026lt;o J I* I  Ifl F fl Stephen W. Jones, Esquire Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 Sharon Street, Esquire Arkansas Dept, of Education Education Building #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 caiolyngUnd.af M. Samuel Jones, Esquire Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 I -4- m X X CD o \u0026gt; W m X I cs m X X o UI m X X ra m X X CD m X X 00 I (O t 1 I c H m X z E o I fl \u0026gt; co m X X co 4k m X z E tfi m X z E o\u0026gt; m X I 2 m X I o 00 r m X z E (O 1 b' aJm X X 2 o M \u0026gt;  w EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION m X X E m X X 2 cn m X X 2 9\u0026gt; m X X 00 m X X 2 00 m X X E (O 38UCITYWIDE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM The citywide early childhood education program will focus on three obj ect ives\nearly childhood students\n(1) to provide parenting education for the parents of (2) to provide quality child-care arrangements for low income parents which stress social development and school readiness\ndisadvantaged students. Arkansas have addressed and (3^ to provide a quality pre-school program for At least three programs in Pulaski County, one or more last decade. of these objectives during the The Little Rock School District currently operates early childhood programs in five buildings. Plans are underway to open three additional sites in 1900-91 and three additional sites 1991-92. In Several Head Start centers are presently in operation within the boundaries of the Little Rock School District. The Head Start program ters are is administered by COPE of Pulaski County and additional cen- expected to open during the next two years. The City of Little Rock Model Cities program has two early childhood centers. The purpose of the citywide early childhood education program is to combine the efforts of these three entities, that may emerge in the future. along with other entitles to provide quality early childhood experiences to as many disadvantaged students in the city of Little Rock as possible. Research clearly indicates that effective early intervention is one of the best strategies to combat academic achievement disparity and the poor academic performance of minority students. In addressing the objectives of the citywide early childhood education program. the three entities cited in this report have attempted to avoid the duplication of services, every opportunity possible to share to the extent possible, resources. and use The following is a brief summary of each of the three programs\nHead Start Program A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Uses the High/Scope curriculum Children must meet funding guidelines Training provided for parents Medical, social, and health services provided Mandated to involve parents in decision-making (Policy Council) Visited Ypsilanti, Michigan for High/Scope training Teachers are not required to be certified or have degrees Serves 3 and 4 year old students Three centers in boundaries of LRSD - old King School, Highland Court, m X I 2 o \u0026gt; CD  m X I 2 m X I 2 -I oi m X I m at m X z OD m X I E 00 J . K. L. M. and Hollingsworth Court m X I m Total of 246 students served in three centers Staff development throughout the year Plans for expansion in 1990-91 Uses aides to 382H fl m X X 2 Model Cities Program o N A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. J . Teachers are required to have degrees Teachers have participated Does not use Hlgh/Scope in PET and EPSF training Two sites - East Little Rock Community Center Complex and South Little Rock Recreation Center For working parents only Not required to have parent involvement - parent involvement programs twice a year. Site used by LRSD HIPPY program for staff training No plans for expansion Uses assistant teachers Little Rock School District A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J . Teachers must be certified Five sites in 198990 school year Total of 300 students in fouiyear old program Must comply with desegregation requirements Rockefeller is the only school with pre-four year old students Hlgh/Scope curriculum Parent involvement program Ongoing staff development Plans for expansion in 1990-91 and 1991-92 Uses aides In regard the to three objectives cited earlier, have agreed to the following\nthe three parties Parent Involvement involvement activities. - The parties will exchange calendars for parent To the extent possible, these activities will be available to parents outside of the sponsors program, also will share resources in publicizing these activities. The parties For Instance, the Little Rock School District has a cable channel that can be used to announce activities to the public. Districtwide and school newsletters are sent to parents on a regular basis. Likewise, the Model Cities program has access to the cable channel that serves the black community. The parties should also be able to derive some benefit from the resources of the Chapter 1 parent Involvement program. Chapter 1 funds can be used for early childhood education if the strategies focus on early intervention activities for at-risk students. Staff Development - The parties will exchange calendars for staff development activities and. to the extent possible, the sponsor of the staff development activity will allow representatives from the other parties to participate. This process will begin in August 1990. Considerable colloboratlon should occur between the Little Rock School occur District and Head Start since both programs use the High/Scope curri- The staff development activities will be geared to the needs culum. of aides as well as teachers. 383 co m X X co 4^ m X X n cn m X X w \u0026lt;n m X X 00 m X X m 00 m X X 5 (0student Referrals - By October 1, 1993, it is expected that the num- ber of educationally disadvantaged students enrolled in early childhood education programs in the city of Little Rock will be SO percent of the eligible population. In oi'der to achieve this goal, it is extremely important that the parties use a student referral system. This system will allow parent tan a waiting list for one know about vacancies in another early childhood program. program to The parties v/ill meet on a quarterly basis to review vacancies and Identify referrals. This system will begin in August 1990. Student Assignment Process - The three parties recognize the need for disadvantaged parents to understand the assignment process for klnder- garten in the Little Rock School District. In the past, disadvantaged parents have not taken advantage of the kindergarten pre-reglstrat ion opportunities that are available In February and March. Traditionally, these parents wait until mid-August or after the opening of school to register their children. Parents who wait until August or Septem- ber to register have an obvious disadvantage if vacancies are limited. The Little Rock School District met with Head Start parents during the 1990 spring registration to review the kindergarten assignment pro- cess. In the future, the Little Rock School District will each spring with parents from both programs to review the kindergarten assignment process. In addition to neglecting kindergarten registration. that some disadvantaged parents it is apparent school opportunities in their neighborhoods. are not taking advantage of magnet The annual spring sessions on kindergarten registration also will be used to provide information on magnet school opportunities. Lon.g-term Monitoring - The real success of any early childhood program depends on the long-term effects of pre-school intervention efforts. It is Important that early childhood agencies have some means of following the progress of their clients during the early years of regular schooling. Beginning in the 1989-90 school year, a list will be compiled of all graduates from the three early childhood programs. These students will be identified in the Little Rock School District mainframe computer system according to their respective programs. At the end of each year for grades K-3, on the basis of standardized tests. these students will be monitored criterion-referenced tests. EPSF screening. or applicable. any other academic measures that are available and The parties will review these results on an annual basis, prior to the beginning of the following school year, and make pro- grammatic changes. individually and collectively, as needed. These students will be compared to a control group in order to Isolate the effectiveness and/or deficiencies of the various early childhood programs. Facilities - The largest Head Start center is located In a building owned by the Little Rock School District. The Little Rock School District anticipates the abandonment of additional school buildings in 1991-1992. If this occurs. Start will be explored, for training programs. additional lease arrangements with Head The parties will continue to share facilities recreational activities. etc. 384 m X X 2 o \u0026gt; S3 I S3 tD m X X 2 m X X 2 cn m X X 2 at m X X o rn II X II 3: It 2 11 09 m X X E (OFrom: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham - Little Rock, Ar. 72201 HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS 1401 Scott - Little Rock, Ar. 72202 m X I E o I June 7, 1990 To: 9? James Jennings Associate Superintendent of Desegregation M Marian Shead, Supervisor HIPPY Subject: Program Up Date m X I E Enclosed is an update of the program for the months of January through May, 1990 for your review and endorsement. 4^ m X I E AA A A W1 m X I 2 a\u0026gt; m X I n \u0026lt;o I  E - 385 II HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS m X X ro PROGRAM UPDATE JANUARY THROUGH MAY 1990 o JANUARY: A parent survey was conducted by the program supervisor and coordinators to determine the effects and impact of the program. 5? I FEBRUARY: The second phase of the implementation of the week fifteen (15) . gram were printed. program began at The materials for the remainder of the pro- Flyers were also printed and the monthly Newsletter continued to be mailed to parents and staff members. m X X 2 MARCH: An evaluation of the aides was conducted by the coordinators and supervisor to establish and calculate the aides' comprehension of the materials and performance with the families. A speaker from the State Department of Education was provided to speak to the parents on the subject of With Children,\" II How to Be Successful m X X oa UI o\u0026gt; X X S APRIL: Inservice Training on self-esteem was provided each Tuesday and in group meetings throughout the month of April, A series of lectures was given by the program supervisor entitled \"I Believe In Me Strategies,\" m X X n MAY: Graduation exercises were held for the HIPPY children. (5) year old participants diplomas,  - wore cates . The five caps and gowns and received The four (4) year old participants received certifim X X 00 -I 00 r A reception in honor of the aides was held with the goal of further building self esteem, imparting confidence in the work they had done throughout the year, and determination to _____ __ J year, continue to improve their way of life. m X X 5 At the close of the program an evaluation of the aides was conducted by the coordinators and supervisor to determine their accomplishment in job performance and their ability to work with parents, (O 38Gm X X TO o  \u0026gt; !\u0026gt;? co m X X TO m X X TO cn m X X S 9\u0026gt; m X X TO I Z ? o ' 03 p .V m I i: m X z E o SUMMER LEARNING PROGRAM 387 \u0026gt; CD m X X E m X X E cn m X X E a\u0026gt; m X X E m I OD =' 00 m X X E .V toSUMMER LEARNING PROGRAM I IB 1990 m X X 2 o NARRATIVE This isa cost-reimbursement subcontract between the City of Little Rock, administrative entity for the City of Little Roc'x Service Delivery Area, and the Little Rock School District. Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Title IIB funds under this subcontract are provided for the purpose of com60 plying with 20 CFR Part 630.2 and with the expressed policies of the Private Industry Council of Little Rock. Activities and services to be provided under this Summer Learning Program m X X 2 subcontract include: 1) The scheduling and administering of pre-testing in the areas of reading and math of all eligible participants (up to 300) for Little Rock's SYETP. using Levels E, M, D and A will be used. The Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) m X X CD 2) Provision of up to 90 hours of remediation of 144 participants cn 3) 4) whose pre-test score is below 7.0. Remediation will be in either reading or math, based on greatest area of deficiency as determined by pre-assessment test results. The scheduling and administering of post-testing in the areas of reading and math of all SYETP remediation participants. This will be done at the time of exit from this training component. Coordination with summer worksites and the provision of transportation of JTPA participants to and from their assigned worksites during the six-week period of remediation. m X X 2 a\u0026gt; m X . X ' CD Il 5) The submission of a final report to the City's JTPA Department which contains a list of each JTPA participant's Social Security Number, total number of hours of attendance, pre-test scores, post-test scores, points of gain/loss in the area trained, and percentage of growth attained by each, as well as school of each participant and his/her grade level. 00\n00 m 0 X X 2 (O 388Pre-testing of up to 300 eligible participants and alternates will be conducted at the Adult Education Center, 1401 Scott Street, Room 101 and 102 on the following dates: m X I DO o May 5, May 12, May 19, and May 26, 1990 Using pre-test score, the District, OTPA staff and worksite program operators will develop work/remediation schedules for OTPA participants who are identi- \u0026gt; H fied as needing remediation. Youth scoring below 7.0 on the pre-test will be tn defined as \"needing remediation\". Remedial instruction will be provided on 12:1 student/teacher ratio. The City reserves the option to make a pro rata adjustment for each 12 OTPA participants added to or subtracted from the 144 participants to be provided remediation m X I 5 under this initial subcontract. This amount will be mutually agreed to by the contractor and subcontractor. The 90 hours of instruction will be provided during a 6-week period, beginning tn 1 week after SYETP inception, 5 days per week, 3 hours per day. A minimum m X I o of 30 minutes during each 3-hour session will be spent by each participant in individualized computer-aided instruction. m X I o\u0026gt; m X Remedial instruction will be provided at a site to be provided by the Little Rock School District. One week of inservice training for all remedia- tion instructors will be conducted prior to program start date by Little Rock School District supervisors of reading, mathematics, staff development and the director of the SLP. I m X I E Participants in remediation will be enrolled into and exited from the City's JTPA management information system. This will be done in accordance with X V IX procedures and time frame instructions to be provided to subcontractor by o (O 389I  the JTPA management information system prior to program implementation. Time and attendance of participants will be recorded by subcontractor on a daily basis. Time sheets will be submitted to the OTPA Finance Department and provided to subcontractor prior to the beginning of remediation. These records will be used by Finance to prepare payroll for participants and will provide assurance that participants not attending as required will not be paid. To further coordinate and to monitor the activities of participants scheduled for remediation, subcontractor shall inform worksites daily of absentee participants. weekly basis. A written report will be sent to respective worksites on a 390 m X XE o \u0026gt; I m X X OT m X X OD m X XS O) m X X w m X X 5 00 X n III 1  I II Please note: 1 m X z E JTPA SUMMER LEARNING OPPORTIINITIES PROGRAM Staff Development Schedule June 18-22, 1990 Forest Heights Junior High School Media Center, Assigned Classrooms, and Computer Lab 1. o \u0026gt;  3 . 2. 3. 4. James Wise, program coordinator, will au development activities identified below. will supervise all staff Monday, June 18, 1990 Teachers (6) and aides (2) will partici pate. the entire week. The computer aide (1) will participate on Friday only. The Reading and Math Supervisors will be available throughout the week if requested. tn 8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Overview of Staff Development Activities Program Expectatipiis Marvin Zimmerman y\u0026lt; z 00 James Wise n 9:00 a.m. 11:30 a.m. Reading Strategies and Materials Mary Mosley fli Math Strategies and Materials Dianne Wood m X z 00 n 11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. 12:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. tn Lunch I Cooperative/I earn Learning V Tuesday. June 19, 1990 Marcel line Carr Bettye McBride Mary Mosley m X z E H 8:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. I I Development of Specific Lessons to Include Application of above Cooperative/Team Learning and other Strategies Teachers and aides work independently and/or in groups-m X z 2 - Wednesday, June 20. 1990 8:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Analysis of Student Data James Wise m X z Determination of Group Ass ignments Planning for Individual Needs At appropriate times teachers and aides w work independently and/or in groups- 00 m X z 00 Establishment of Performance Oh jf.'cti VC. 391 \u0026lt;o M Thursday, June 21, 1990 0:30 a.m, 11:30 a . ni. Learning Styles Janice Butcher 11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. Lunch 12:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. Application of Learning Styles to Math and Reading Strategies and Materials Teachers and aides w1 work Independently and/or 1n groups. Friday, June 22, 1990 8:30 a.m. 11:30 a.m. ri Development of Computer Schedule James Wise, teachers, aides, and computer aide 11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. Lunch 12:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. Preparation of Classroom and Finalize Plans for Beginning of Classes Teachers, aides, and computer aides will work 1n Individual rooms, ri I ri ri ri ri 39? m X X E o w m X X E .u m X X DO UI m X X E m m X I E 00 XIn m X X E o 3 tn I XE m X X E cn m X X E a\u0026gt; m X X5 m X X E 00 m I X U I 09 i H 1., (O J iB n J m X X E i o IH fI-Ii g SCHOOL OPERATIONS w X m X X E Id cn m X I E o\u0026gt; m X X E s c E* 393 m X X DO I 5 J ! (O V I ! 5  '\u0026lt;!w DIVISION OF SCHOOLS m X X E 1. Objective: o To review organizational ottice to ensure sufficient M r  1 ------------OUUUUL L lur SLUae for implementation of the desegregation plan. structure in schools and central support for students and staff success and Status: annoinfoH^ districtwide committee and school-based appointea. committees V J . wiiwx uaocvi kxUuiiiiLtees were once each qu^ reported to districtwide conmittee schoolprovided feedback school-based committees. (See 10-11-89 memo to principals) to 2. Objective: - . To provide inservice to raise of equity concerns for students. staff awareness/expectations a Status: (See status report on staff development) 3. Objective: district str^ctHJ7^Sv'''T parental awareness of istrict structure, policy and programs, and ways to access them. Status: n . addition to mini-seminars at PTA meetinss ChantPK 1 h'l'i throughou\nthe school year at various locations in the district, such topics as the new report card, the piine, self-esteem and motivation, etc. attachment) The workshops covered new reading series, disci- (See Chapter 1 calendar 4. Objective: - . To monitor school standards education for all students. to ensure high quality Status: Schools vere monitored on a regular basis by appropriate reports from^^ evaluation specialists. Monitoring as??^^Anf e'^aluation specialists were review by associate and  assistant superintendents in order to identify and address concerns 5. Objective: Provide education to staff and culture and positive school climate. patrons regarding school Status: exDectati^n\u0026lt;,^S:^^\"i general meetings on climate and diss schml^f^i beginning and end of year to held Srh and expectations. Small group meetings were dent tn assistant superintendents, and the superintendent to discuss climate and expectations. permten 6. Objective: Monitor school climate and resource allocation. s X OD m X I E m X X E m X X E c * Ml Status: (See #4) m X I E CO k 394m X X Division of Schools Desegregation Status Report page two o 5? 7. Objective: To work with schools to help them design programs which meet the specific needs of their students. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Status: School improvement plan developed by each school. Schools assisted by appropriate assistant superintendent. Each school improvement plan included detailed school profile and goals for improvement . Objective: Establish a program to familiarize parents with school expectations and to build a partnership with them. Status: School objectives, discipline policy, etc., shared with parents through school newsletters, district calendar, etc. Objective: Provide inservice to district personnel on behavioral styles and learning styles of students of divergent backgrounds. Status: (See status report on staff development) Objective: Achieve equity in class structures by grade and by subject area. Status: Class ratios by subject, by class, and by teacher reviewed at beginning of year and at semester by assistant superintendents and principals. Adjustments were made as needed. Objective: Achieve equity in student instructional practices. Status: (See #10) Objective: Achieve equity in teaching methods. Status: (See status report on staff development) I I tr 5 X 5 m X X 3 w, m X X S a\u0026gt; m X X m Objective: Inform all students and patrons of co-curricular/extra- curricular activities available for students and of participation requirements. Status: Extracurricular activities publicized in each building. Local biracial conmittees focused on strategies to inform and recruit students. Principals required to show evidence of broadbased participation, absence of disparity, and a plan for recruitment. i m X X 00 (O Objective: Staff recruitment of students to participate in extracurricular activities. Status: (See #13) t 395Division of Schools Desegregation Status Report page three 15. Objective: Increase student participation, particularly minority student participation in co-curricular activities. m X X E o J*? 16. Status: (See #13) 17. 18. Objective: Removal of all barriers for students who wish to participate in extracurricular activities. Status: Transportation program used for student transportation. Objective: Develop school profiles which provide overview of school success or its impact on students so that changes and/or interventions can take place as needed. Status: School profiles developed at the beginning of the school ro 00 4k 19. 20. year as part of the school improvement process. Principal evaluations will be based on progress in school profile areas. Objective: Visits to schools by testing/evaluation monitoring team to assess validity and reliability of testing procedures and strategies employed to prepare students for test taking. Status: Meeting held with building principals to review testing procedures. Test-taking preparation provided by individual schools. Schools monitored during testing by Planning, Research and Evaluation Department. Objective: Disaggregation of test results by grade, by race for review and assessment for intervention purposes. (See #'s 7 and 17 - School profiles include disaggregated test data.) Status: Objective: Develop/enhance site-based management at schools. Status: Staff development provided for principals during pre-school inservice training sessions (two days). m X I E UI m X XE a\u0026gt; m X XE b b b 21. Objective: Provide support to revitalize school environments to make it conducive to student learning. Status: Ibis project is ongoing. The district is giving priority to removing portable buildings and addressing building needs identified during the millage campaign. A five-year plan has been developed for the removal of portable buildings. m HE X Hr X 5 i to L 39G s Division of Schools Desegregation Status Report page four m X XE o UI 22. ID Objective: Respond to principal requests for assistance in a timely manner. Status: An assistant superintendent is assigned to each for the purposes of supervision and technical assistance. In addition, instructional supervisors are available for instructional assistance as needed. 5?\nco UI 23. Objective: Provide school-based planning based on analysis of all available data\na specific format for addressing school, racial, gender, and SES disparities. u IB IB 24. Status: (See #'s 7, 17, and 19 - Each school developed a school improvement plan based on disaggregated data in various areas, cipal's evaluation based on successful implementation of school improvement plan. Prin-cI5 Objective: To update skills of all district staff on a regular basis and to keep all staff abreast of developments in their field of endeavor . m X X n Status: (See status report on staff development) ai bl bl m X XE O) m X Xw bl in b b b bI I  t co 39V r if 'I \u0026lt; m X I: m 1 il c . n - \ni(S\\ rir  jl| I t_- I o  Js! I B X 2 m X X 2 UI m X X 2 Oi m X X o ni II X U I ' 2 (O L.If m X X E o nI m X Xw IO w m X X E ATTACHMENT m X X E A UI m X X E Oi m X Xs . ijr.T '1 I I hiive S', M m X _ I  E (O r.. *ot irWllTTT f A4OL (SO11J74-3W1 I I VI I KtBB0i -1 1 m X X  III I ' Little Rock School District I - 'l o J October 11, 1989 ( I I n TO: FROM: THROUGH: All Building Principals James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation \"S' Monitoring and Program Development Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educationali??^ Programs and Staff Development SUBJECT: Bi-racial Advisory Conmittee m X X o Each school should have a bi-racial conmittee made up of parents, teachers. The students and one or more representatives of the school administration, conmittee should be balanced by race and gender. The school-based bi-racial committee is expected to monitor activities related to desegregation and develop strategies to rectify any areas of concern. It is very important that conmittee recommendations receive the attention and support needed from m X X 2 all staff members to ensure success. In regard to specific duties, each school-based bi-racial advisory conmittee is expected to do the following: m X X 2 a. Meet on a monthly basis to review and develop strategies related to effective school desegregation. The Diagnostic Categories for Effective School Desegregation form should be used to identify areas of compliance and non- compliance. Please be specific about areas of concern and ronediation plans. a\u0026gt; m X X ro I 1 w '5 I I : 1 I I  1! u\u0026lt; I 11 b. Also, slnare minutes of each meeting with all custodians, etc.\n. .A Keep minutes of each meeting, t staff members (i.e. teachers, custodians, cafeteria workers, etc.), copy of the minutes should be sent to the Office of Desegregation. c. 7 II Submit a quarterly status report to the district-wide bi-racial advisory committee (c/o LRSD Office of Desegregation, Attention: James Jennings). The report should identify areas of compliance\nspecial activities that have proven to be successful\nareas of conceim\nand reconmendations to rectify areas of concern. The principal should also snare this report with the Assistant Superintendent for his/her building. m X X 2 co -J b b 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 3 \u0026lt;3 8 9V 111 Bi-racial Committee Page two m X X2 o 111 d. Deadlines: First Report Second Report Third Report Friday, December 1 (for first quarter) Friday, February 23 (for second quarter) Tuesday, May 1 (for third quarter) m X X 2 e. f. (NOTE: You are not required to submit a fourth quarter report.) Address any concerns identified by the district-wide bi-racial advisory committee, Board of Directors, Associate or Assistant Superintendents. On-site monitoring by the school-based committee is optional. Please share this memo with all staff and bi-racial advisory committee members. rjg: cc: Senior Management Team to CD m X X 3 m X I 2 tn b b b bI m X X 2 O) m X X 2 ti b 399 m I. Racial Isolation m X Xn A. B. C. D. Playground Cl assrooms Cafeteria Modeling by staff o m X X 00 I Z! II. Faculty Assignments IQ A. B. C. D. E. F. Bl III. 13 IV. K Bl V. Bl VI. VII. Dept. Chairs AP/Honors Special Education Regular classes Sponsors Faculty leaders Building reps. Mai ntenance A. B. C. D. PAL A. B. C. D. c tn m X X2 Bathrooms Hallways Cleanliness, etc. of grounds Repairs Periodic monitoring of progress Monitoring of exits Effectiveness of instruction Interaction between classroom teacher and PAL teacher Review and refinement of lEP Equitable Participation in Extracurricular Activities A. B. C. D. E. F. Assemblies Honor clubs Band Athletics Non-academic clubs Ongoing strategies to increase participation Equity in Suspensions, Expulsions, G/T. etc. A. B. Quarterly monitoring practices that exacerbate problems Counseling Parental Involvement A. B. C. D. E. F. Participation in PTA (interracial and multiclass) Volunteers (interracial and multiclass) Parent visits (non-disciplinary matters) Home support Strategies to increase participation (ongoing) Recruitment 400 m X X 5 (71 m X X E Oi m X Xn m X X2 (O m X I n VIII. Achievement Disparity o A. B. C. Plan of action Frequent monitoring D. E. F. Delivery of prophecy) Emphasis by Emphasis on Remediation instruction (high expectations vs self-fulfilling building leadership mastery efforts m XI E ro to m X z: E m X I E UI m X I E m X X E J.?* X I  5 4 0 j MEQCLIST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT m X I E SCHOOL: PRINCIPAL: EVALUATOR: KEY: major enhancement/quality control MONITORING CHECKLIST 1989-90 DATE: NUMBER OF CLASSROOMS VISITED: GRADE LEVEL(S): o u1 A = Observed B = Not Observed C = Needs Attention Questions SC 1 through SC 4 need be answered only once for each school .cit. Questions SC 5 through DSG 50 should be answered for each classroom observed. visit. CHECKLIST ______ITEMS I REVIEW :_B  C I COMMENTS SCHOOL CLIMATE (30 SC 1 The building and grounds are clean and in good condition.  dumpster (trash pick-up) area ... playground areas (sufficient, well-maintained) ... parking lot/courtyard ... hallways (free from obstructions) ... classrooms (comfortable, attractive, functional) ... restrooms (functional, properly supplied) ... cafeteria ... office area (neat, orderly) SC 2 A schedule is established and followed for custodial staff to maintain the school grounds, including proper trimming of grass and shrubs. SC 3 Recpiests for maintenance/repairs to building and grounds are completed within a reasonable period of time. (___ days) SC 4 Office staff exhibits a positive attitude and is courteous and efficient when dealing with the following: ... students ... teachers ... patrons . .. others SC 5 School climate is safe and orderly- 402 5 m X I n o\u0026gt; m X X n Bl nl MAJOR ENHANCEMENT/QUALITY CONTROL MONITORING CHECKLIST 1989-90 Page 2 KEY: A Observed B Not Observed C  Needs Attention m X X2 II CHECKLIST ITEMS I R E V I E W_ A___:___ a___ c I o COMMENTS I  111 SC 6 III Positive interaction is occurring within the building. ... teacher/teacher ... teacher/students ... teacher/principal ... student/student . . . other m X X ro to sc 1 Teacher/student ratio does not 111 exceed specified limits. INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP IILI (1/20) W III I IL 8 Teacher is aware of monitoring activities and has seen a copy of the checklist. X2 J] IL 9 ai l al IL 10 til IL 11 til e'i! IL 12 [11 I IL 13 Bl The principal is an effective instructional leader and a viable resource to staff. ... school profile folder available ... supplies, materials provided ... Collaborative planning and decision-making exists as related to the School Improvement Plan. Each employee is evaluated at least once during the school year through the use of an approved evaluation instrument. The teacher evaluation, is based on the accomplishment of the following: ... specific goals (IIP) ... individual's overall performance Each teacher has the opportunity to participate throughout the school year in appropriate staff development which enables the staff to fulfill the school mission and purpose. The school has strategies to increase parental involvement in school and in home supported educational activities. IL 14 Principal supplies information about the school to community and patrons. 103 m X I 2 UI m X X 5 m X X 2 Il Ir MAJOR ENHANCEMENT/QOALITY CONTROL MONITORING CHECKLIST 1989-90 Page 3 KEY: A Observed B = Not Observed C = Needs Attention m X I CD CHECKLIST ITEMS I R E V I E W_ A  B  C I o IL 15 COMMENTS I Teachers are provided adequate information regarding the instructional program. m X I 2 HIGH EXPECTATIONS (HE) 1 HE 16 M] I HE 17 Ml HE 18 Ml Ml til til til hl HE 19 HE 20 HE 21 1 HE 22 1n HE 23 n The principal and school staff are actively involved in implementing the school plan to address the needs of at-risk students. (School profile folder) The major enhancement programs are well defined and evident throughout the building. Teacher demonstrates a commitment to and understands the purpose of the major enhancement program. . . . student work displayed . . . field trips related to the school theme ... special projects and activities ... bulletin boards Teachers clearly exhibit through their interactions with students the belief that all students can learn. Students with outstanding success in academics and/or citizenship are recognized. Students have homework assignments, teacher check-in, and immediate feedback. (Homework assignment posted, responses from randomly selected students.) The total school atmosphere reflects high expectation for intellectual development and responsible citizenship. ... visible focus ... quality/quantity of student work displayed ... by providing for individual student differences. Positive reinforcement of desired student behavior is practiced (Praise successful experiences.) 404 tD m X I m m X I 2 UI m X I 2 O\u0026gt; m X I2 MAJOR ENHANCEMENT/QUALITY CONTROL MONITORING CHECKLIST 1989-90 Page 4 KEY: A Observed B Not Observed tn X I CD HE 24 HE 25 HE 26 C = Needs Attention CHECKLIST ITEMS Students are goal oriented and remain on task. School programs are designed to ensure involvement of all students. Student attendance is monitored by principal and staff. grrecTivE imstroctiow (ed EI 27 Teachers have sufficient materials and equipment for implementation of the total instructional program. EI 28 Sufficient time on task is provided for students to master the basic curriculum. EI 29 School staff members have the opportunity to suggest materials to be purchased for the media center. I o review A___ B  C I COMMENTS m X X2 hj W I ) ^5 X m m X z CD EI 30 Books, materials, resources, and media reflect racial and ethnic diversity. UI m X IE EI 31 EI 32 EI 3 3 EI 34 Positive racial and ethnic images and concepts are reflected in all instructional materials. Teachers carefully preview, review, and update instructional media to guarantee the elimination of cultural bias. The media center staff members provide broadening and enriching experiences for the students. Remedial programs are carefully monitored by principal and staff, including a review of the identification process, academic progress, and exit procedures. EI 35 Special programs (e.g. telephone hotlines, homework centers, extended day, extended year, summer programs, and special tutoring) are provided for remediation and enrichment. \u0026lt;io\n\u0026gt; 3 a\u0026gt; m X X 2 I * mir XI -li m to f MAJOR ENHANCEMENT/QUALITY CONTROL MONITORING CHECKLIST 1989-90 Page 5 KEY: A Observed CHECKLIST ______ITEMS EI 36 EI 37 EI 38 EI 39 EI 40 EI 41 EI 42 B  Not Observed I C Needs Attention R E V I E W_ A  B  C I COMMENTS Students receive instruction in the computer laboratory at least once each week. Extensive services in guidance and counseling are provided to identify and address the needs of all students. ... analyze student test data ... plan and prescribe appropriate programs ... identify at-risk students ... lower drop-out rate ... decrease student academic failure Heterogeneous grouping is the primary practice of organizing students for instruction. There is an emphasis on the basic skills of reading, writing, and mathematics. There is a performance-based student promotion policy which discourages social promotions. Parents, students, and teachers understand the student promotion policy. 01 Current and complete student records are maintained in the classroom and school office to monitor the progress in achievement of the individual learner. (Including ASDP's [grades 3 and 6] for students who failed any subject area of the MPT.) m X X 2 o m X X5 to W 5? I 2 m X X n UI m X X 2 o\u0026gt; m X I 5 J I EI 43 The gifted program has been structured to avoid segregative effects, i.e. race, gender, or grade level. tJ! EI 44 There is evidence that the Multiethnic Curriculum has been followed. .'ll m EI 45 In Student progress is monitored by principal/teachers/parents. X I2 \u0026lt;0 to ni mi MAJOR ENHANCEMENT/QUALITY CONTROL MONITORING CHECKLIST 1989-90 Page 6 KEY: A  Observed CHECKLIST ____ items B  Not Observed A C = Needs Attention REVIEW A I COMMENTS m X X co o PAREWT/COMMPMITY 8DPPORT (PCS) PCS 4 6 School participates in Partners in Education program. m X I 2 r\u0026gt;j PCS 47 Parents actively participate through the following: ... the School Improvement Team ... the Biracial Committee ... a parent advisory group ... Parent Teacher Association (PTA)  I PCS 48 tn [U Parents are directly involved in their child's education. ... furnish supplies/materials ... attend scheduled conferences ... attend school activities ... serve as VIPS/resource person cz 00 PCS 49 VIPS are effective in assisting the staff members in each school. m X I E DI8TRICT/SCHOOL GOALS (D8Q) DSG 50 School staff members understand goals of the LRSD and the school. VI bl DSG 51 School staff members were involved in the development of school goals and building plan. I m X z w O bl DSG 52 bl Goals and strategies have been developed to decrease the achievement disparity between black and white students on the following measures of student achievement. ... MAT-6 ... MPT ... grade distribution m X IW bl DSG 53 There is evidence of a strong emphasis to ensure that students will master the basic skills. bl I ba I i n ba co ba b! 10 V i a m X X S  fl I fl z o m X XE a 5 X 5 - il m X X o (n m X X E o\u0026gt; m X X w m Z * E co In m X X E o m X X m ro m X X E Cd m X X E ATTACHMENT B m X X E b b b b b b b czi m Xz o o\u0026gt; ni X XS -s'  r- Ti ! ni , X 5  5 !.\n ,O I. I 0 MflBi ce H0n 0 0 DONT FORGET CHAPTER 1 SCHOOLS CALENDAR FOR 1989-90 SCHOOL YEAR THEME: IGNORANCE IS EXPENSIVE-CAN WE AFFORD IT NO, CHAPTER 1 CHILDREN MUST LEARN. August 22, 1989\nSeptember 7, 1989 September 14, 1989 September 21, 1989 September 27, 1989 thru October 1, 1989 October 10, 1989 October 17, 1989 November 14, 1989 November 21, 1989 December 12, 1989 December 19, 1989 January 16, 1990 IT?* M. fi I. District PAC Organizational Meeting, IRC, 5- 3805 West 12th Street Little Rock, AR~72204 5:30 p.ra. SEPTEMBER DISTRICT-WIDE MANDATED MEETING BY LAW -^ttle Rock) Washington Elementary. 7:00 pm Bobby Goodwin, Principal -------------------------------------- 115 West 27th Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Mandated Meeting (Southwest Little Rock) Baseline El Robert Brown, Principal --------------------- 3623 Baseline Road Little Rock, AR 72209 ementary, 7:00 p.m. Ashley, Principal 1600 North Tyler Street Little Rock, AR 72204 16th Annual National Conference, Long Beach, CA Theme-Responding To The Future Sheraton Hotel, Long Beach, CA Reg1strat1on--$85.00 Hotel Rates$80.00 plus 101 tax OCTOBER 9-13 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH WEEK Tuesday Night Parents Workshop (New Report Card), IRC, 6-30 o m 3805 West 12th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 ------ District PAC Meeting (Parent Involvement and Achievements) Cloverdale Elementary, 11:00 - - Saddle Mitchell, Prine 1 pa1 6500 Hinkson Road Little Rock, AR 72209 a.m. NOVEMBER 3 DISTRICT-WIDE PARENT CONFERENCE DAY Tuesday Night Parents Workshop (New Reading Series), IRC. 6-30 o m 3805 West 12th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 ------ ' District PAC Meeting (T.V. and your Child) Chicot Elementary, 3:30 p.m. Otis Preslar, Prine 1pa1 11100 Chicot Road Little Rock, AR 72209 DECEMBER INVEST IN YOUR CHILD'S EDUCATION THRU GIFTS Tuesday Night Parents Workshop (Living Math), IRC, 6:30 p m 3805 West 12th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 ------ District PAC Meeting (Nutrition and your Child) ytchell Elementary , 1:30 p.m. Donita Hudspeth, Princ1 pa1 2410 Battery Street Little Rock, AR 72206 JANUARY 15 MARTIN LUTHER KING HOLIDAY-HUMAN RELATIONS District PAC Meeting (PET, TESSA and your Child) Wakefield Elementary, 12:00 Noon Lloyd Black, Principal 75 Westminster Street Little Rock, AR 72209 OVER m X X 2 o m X I 00 m XX 2 Ca\u0026gt; m X X 2 m X X 2 cn m X X 2 O) m X X2 408 (O ' February 20, 1990 FEBRUARY 13-' PTA FOUNDER'S DAY LUNCHEON District PAC Meeting (Discipline and your Child) Ish Elementary, 6:30 p.m. Lonnie Dean, Prineipal H March 13, 1990 3001 Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206 MARCH-30 DISTRICT-WIDE PARENT CONFERENCE DAY Tuesday Night Parents Workshop (Self-Esteem and 3805 West 12th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Motivation), IRC, 6:30 p.m. March 20, 1990 B District PAC Meeting (Talented and Giftedness and your Child) Western Hills Elementary, 7:30 * - Margie Puckett, Principal 4901 Western Hills Little Rock, AR 72204 a.m. B April 10, 1990 B April 17, 1990 B APRIL-MAT-6 TESTING (MEASURING SUCCESS) Tuesday Night Parents Workshop (Decision Making Skills). IRC, 6-30 3805 West 12th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 ------ District PAC Meeting (Parent Involvement and Achievement) Watson Elementary, 12:00 Noon Dr. Diane Glaze, Principa1 7000 Valley Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 MAY-EVALUATION AND PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE p.m. May 15, 1990 B District PAC Meeting (Retention, Advancement and your Child) Romine Elementary. 5:30 p ~ ' Lionel Ward, Prineipal 3400 Romine Road Little Rock, AR 72204 m. June 1, 1990 m X X 2 o m X X E ro m X X 2 CO m X X E B June 18, 1990 B JUNE-ACKNOWLEDGING ACHIEVEMENT IN 1989-90 Annual Awards Program Mann Junior High, 8:00 p.m. Marian Lacey, Principa1 1000 Roosevelt Road Little Rock, AR 72206 Meeting (Maintaining Success During Sumner Vacation) IRC, 7:00 p.m. ' 35775 West 12th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 m X X 2 cn m X X2 Oi B m X X 2 B I m X X2 \u0026lt;o lUH m X X 09 o n m X X E ro m X X 09 Cd Bl m X X E U m X X E cn 1 1111 m X X E o\u0026gt; u m X XE 11 'I J I\nm X Xm 1i 1 (O I m X X E u o l] m X X E ho u m X X E w Cd u m X I E DESEGREGATION STATUS REPORT m X X 5 u tn m X X E u m X X E 4IU l] LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS m X I E o 11 Oune 11, 1990 m X IE ro To: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent m X I E u From: Jo Evelyn Elston, Director, Pupil Services to u Subject: Desegregation Status Report Object!ve: Provide inservice training on discipline in desegregation school setting. m X X E Status: u u Inservice on discipline management conducted August 1-2, 1989, February 26, 1990, and May 21, 1990, to all building principals and administrative staff personnel. Content dealt with review of discipline statistical data at the district and local school level and how to involve total staff in developing, implementing and evaluating schoolbased discipline plan. m X I E tn Objecti ve: Provide committee to review attendance and discipline policies and datum on ongoing basis to ensure equity of policy and policy administration. m X I E n Status: Bl A committee of parents, teachers, administrators and students was formed and met in May, 1989, to review the district Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. This ha ndbook contains a TPBoard-adopted poli cies and procedures relating to discipline, attendance, student services and other areas relating to student governance. The committee submitted a report to the administrators and Board of Directors, containing recommendations for modifying student governance policies and procedures. m X I E Bl A committee is being established to review discipline policy implementation and school climate. This committee will also report back to the superintendent and Board its findings and recommendations before the end of June. 41J Object!ve: m X X 2 Raise student awareness of future career options. n Status: o All Little Rock School District counselors have developed written plans for systematically implementing career devel- rnent curriculum activities. Career development activities include structured classroom presentations, resource speakers, career seminars, and career exploratory experiences. resource m X X 00 Bl H Objective: Implemented activities/experiences are grade and age appropriate and provided to all students K-12. To make students aware of educational and post educational opportuni ties. m X X 2 d Status: A task force composed of representatives from the LRSD counseling department, the business community, vocational education and the Employment Security Division has been formed to plan and implement a Job Fair in either the fall of 1990 or the spring of 1991. The fair will target eleventh and twelfth grade students and will aim to raise student awareness of the job market in the greater Little Rock and surrounding areas and identify potential employment opportunities for graduating seniors. The representatives from the business community totally support this venture and have pledged their support in its planning and implementation. The task force will continue to meet on a regularly scheduled basis throughout the planning phases of the project. m X X 2 m X X 2 m X X E Objective: Create community linkages to assist students in need of special services.  o\u0026gt; Status: Through the collaborative efforts of the Municipal Court, New Futures, the director of Pupil Services and city/state service providers, a new Truancy Review Board was approved by the LRSD Board of Directors for implementation during 1989-90 school year. Parents and students with chronic truancy problems will be referred to the Board for review of the problematic attendance. Appropriate interventions which may include agency referral, fami1y/individual counseling, tutoring and incentives will be provided as needed. fami1y/individual coun- Board members will include representatives from the court system, child advocates, agency providers and school district personnel. This intervention is intended to break the cycle of truancy, school failure, and to provide needed supports to the student and family to ensure regular school attendance. Objective: Inform students of all opportunities open to them and encourage them to take advantage of these opportunities. m X X o 412.u bl Status: A newsletter to senior high school (grades 10, students and their parents titled, TI.c \" ' ' was prepared and mailed out to parents in MayTour issues of the newsletter will be published and mailed yearly newsletter mntflinc 4... i__ n ___/ 7 ' 11 and 12) The Guidance Clipsheet, '5 May.  Hl Hl w. NcjicuBi Will ue puD n snea ano mai led yearl v The contains announcements of local, regional and national scholarships, pre-college test dates, information relative to enrichment opportunities available through colleges and universities, financial aid information and employment opportunities both paid and volunteer. issue was mailed in April, 1990, and subsequent issues to be mailed in October, December, February and April of each school year. The first Objecti ve: m X X TO o m X X IQ m X X TO Hl bl Status: Make parents partners in education of their children by making information accessible to them and by keeping them informed. m X X TO uJ I Objecti ve: Status\nArea community meetings are held in the spring of each school year to review with parents curricula, co-curricular and extracurricula activities offered in the district. Counselors and subject-area supervisory staff are available to answer questions relative to program offerings and educational opportunities provided LRSD students. An Early College Planning seminar was piloted at two junior high schools, Southwest and Forest Heights Junior High Schools, this year. This program is designed to encourage parents and students to begin planning early for a college education and to see college as an option open to their children. A financial aid officer from a local university a banker who deals with student loans, a high school  counselor and a Counselor from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock participated in the program. Next year, all junior high schools will implement this program. Provide counseling intervention for students with chronic disciplinary and/or attendance problems. Structured intervention teams called Pupil Services Teams are operational at each school site. The teams, composed of teachers, counselors, an administrator and other support staff, meet on a regularly scheduled basis to review presenting behaviors, and to plan and implement strategies to address the needs of students with attendance and disciplinary problems. Parents are invited to meet with the Pupil Services team to participate in the fashioning of remedies to address problematic behaviors. m X X TO tn m X X TO Oi m X X TO 413 B m X I n I Interventions include individual and small group counseling, positive incentives for improved attendance and/or behavior or referral to a range of community resources. o u Individual building administrators entered into collaborative relationships with community businesses and civic organizations to provide an array of incentives to students for improved academics, behavior and attendance. m X XE hJ Object!ve: Create academic intervention strategies on a school basis. m X Xo Il Status: Students at both the elementary and secondary levels have been recruited, selected and trained to serve as peer CO II helpers at their respective buildings. Each peer helper 11 has received a minimum of twelve hours of training during special retreats planned and implemented for this purpose. Over 200 students have participated in these training retreats and are actively involved in peer tutoring and peer leadership projects in both the school and communi ty. m X X 3 m X X ra 11 (JI II m X X m n m X X w m X X E I O  H u m X X E IQ u m X X E c*\u0026gt; BE m X X E U BE m X X 5 UI BE m X X m o\u0026gt; m X X E1 m X X E m X XE m X X m PROGRAM FOR ACCELERATED LEARNING (PAL) CONTENT AREA PROGRAMS u MULTI-ETHNIC CURRICULUM m X X5 u PARKVIEW SCIENCE Bl n in bl 115 m X X E tn m X X E m X X E LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 m X X 00 April 30, 1990 u TO: FROM: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development 7\u0026gt;'^lary Runshang, Acting Supervisor of English m X X2 to 0 SUBJECT: Desegregation Plan Update Through June 1, 1990 The following desegregation activities have been completed or are currently in process: m X Xo u u o 0 0 English, Communications, and Journalism  Research and share effective instructional strategies at regularly-scheduled English council meetings (monthly) m X X 00  Identify teachers who could benefit from PET, TESA, and/or Classroom Management I  Schedule those teachers identified above into appropriate district inservice m X X m \u0026gt;1  Monitor above teachers' use of PET, TESA, and/or Classroom Management tn  Monitor teachers' use of different approaches to assess the same concept/ ski 11  Develop and disseminate to 6th grade language arts teachers and 8th grade English teachers supplementary materials to prepare students for AMPT m X X m HI  Identify and suggest appropriate multicultural literature materials for grades 7-12 to be purchased at local school level for 1990-91 school year  Correlate above multicultural materials to district's curriculum m X X w  Offered six (6) hour inservice on cooperative learning in the English classroom  Monitor local schools' adherence to placement criteria (this is being reviewed in relation to G/T placement procedures)  Allocate funds for a co-curricula journalism program at the junior high level including sponsor stipend and printing costs  Monitor junior high journalism program  Select and purchase resource materials to replace or supplement textbooks 41G 0 0I 0  0 ] Desegregation Plan Update (4/30/90) - Page 2 I] Multicultural Curriculum Development m X X TO  Extend inservice for elementary schools through school-based inservice meetings and district-wide meetings d  Purchase supplementary multicultural materials to be used in assisting schools in implementing the elementary multicultural curriculum guide  Schedule meetings of the secondary multicultural curriculum committees d m X X 00  Revise secondary English multicultural curriculum guides to reflect multicultural infusion in the literature component d  Review secondary multicultural literature and research on the teaching of multicultural literature m X X DO co d  Revise indepth reading requirements to reflect higher expectations and multicultural infusion  Develop instructional packets for targeted multicultural literature m X X TO  Develop rationales for the approved indepth literature w  Prepare preliminary order of multicultural books to be purchased out of 1990-91 desegregation funds m X X o  Contact book distributors and negotiate purchase cost of above books d (JI Program for Accelerated Learning (Secondary PAL English)  Gather input concerning success/problems of the secondary PAL program from principals, supervisors, teachers, English council  Modify the secondary PAL program for 1990-91 to be called Reading/English Assistance Program to address above concerns and problems  Obtain recommendations for 1990-91 student placement in Reading/English Assistance Program and complete academic skills needs assessment  Develop improvement plans for students who did not achieve mastery on the AMPT (grades 3 and 6) and for eighth grade \"at-risk\" students  Identify and order needed supplementary materials to be used in 1990-91  Conduct one inservice meeting per semester for secondary PAL English teachers including computer personnel  Work cooperatively with the writing specialist in the Computer Central Department to improve the computer writing program  Monitor PAL classrooms and evaluate PAL program (ongoing)  Work with Data Processing to collect data and modify the annual report process rather than utilizing a district PAL Review Committee as specified in the Desegregation Implementation Time Line m X X o o\u0026gt; m X X CD 417I m X X E 1 TO: id w LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 23, 1990 m X I E Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent Educational Programs and Staff Development FROM: A Leon Adams, Supervisor, Music/Art SUBJECT: Desegregation Update for Music and Art The following desegregation activities have been completed or currently in process from January 17 through June 26, 1990. MUSIC Inservice on Learning Styles (through monthly meetings) ......... Mini-courses on Multicultural Instruction (through monthly meetings) .............. Research and share literature on Effective Teaching Strategies ................................ Correlate resource materials with textbook Identify appropriate multicultural materials VISOAL ARTS Art Education Teaching Trends .... Enhancement of Educational Equity (through monthly meetings) .... Identify and select textbooks and multicultural materials/posters reproductions-slides/AV units . . Correlate resource materials with basic instructional textbooks and content (in progress) ...................................... Identify and maintain list of minority Artists in Residence ............... Art Instructional Materials Fair (not accomplished) .................... Provide six hours of inservice on Cooperative Learning to all secondary art teachers (not accomplished - unable to schedule) ..................... Utilize community resources such as the Arkansas Art Mobile and accomplished regional clinician/consultants (not accomplished - must be developed in comprehensive planning early in the school year) ................................................................ are May May May June June May May May August May April May May 418 m X X E M m X X E m X X E UI m X I E o\u0026gt; m X X E I m X X 2 IT I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 m X X CD hj TO\nFROM: SUBJECT: May 2, 1990 Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development Dianne Wood, Supervisor of Mathematics 1989-90 Desegregation Plan Implementation Update The following mathematics desegregation activities have been completed since January 19, 1990\n-Provided workshops to develop activity-based m X X OS co m X X m n lessons. (See attached staff development activities.) -Provided workshops on use of manlpulatlves in teaching mathematics and provided materials for use in teachers' classrooms. development activities.) (See attached staff m X X 2 cn -Provided Cooperative learning workshops for math teachers, staff development activities.) (team learning) (See attached m X X 2 at -Attended the annual convocation of \"Making Mathematics Work for Minorities\" in Washington, D.C. --sponsored by the Mathematical Sciences Education Board. m X X w 419 11 m X X E Team Learning 2-2-90 Setty 'IcBride 17 Marcelline ' a r r k-12 Reduction of Racial Disparity in Academic \\ch i evement m X X 00  to trades 1-2 Teaching 3rd Nine Week Skill? 2-5-90 Trish R i 11ingsvorth 13 Lsing Manipula- ti\\es (Multi ?u 11 lira 1 C-uides ) m X 1 5 ' =5 1 M Grades 1-2 leaching 3rd Nine Week Skills 2-12-90 Trish Ri 111 ngsvort h 18 1-2 lsing Manipulative s (Multicultural Guides) m X I 2 Grades 5-6 reaching 3rd Nine Week Skills 2-13-90 Judy Trove 11 8 a Using Manipula- tives (Multicultural Guides) m X X 2 UI MPT Poster Pract ice Grades 2-3 2-14-90 Paula Smith 9 2-3 Provide Methods and Materials for MPT Skills m X X 2 o\u0026gt; MPT Poster Practice Grades 4-6 2-19-90 Paula'Smith 11 4-6 Provide Methods and Materials for MPT Skills m X I E Grade R Teaching 3rd Nine Week Skills 2-20-90 Dianne Wood k Using Manipula- tives (Multicultural Guides) Grade R Teaching 3rd Nine Week Skills 2-22-90 Dianne Wood k Using Manipula- tives (Multicultural Guides) Grades 5-6 Teaching 4th Nine Week Skills 3-5-90 Paula Smith 11 5-6 Using Manipula- tives (Multicultural Guides) Grade R Teaching 4th 3-7-90 Trish Rillingsworth 23 R Using Manipula- tives (Multi4 20m X X 2 Grades 1-2 Teaching 4th Nine Week Skills Grades 5-6 Teaching 3rd Nine Week Skills Grades 1-2 Teaching 4th Nine Week Skills Nine Week Skills 3-8-90 3-13-90 3-15-90 Judy Trowel1 6 4-6 Dianne Wood Dianne Wood 1-2 cultural Guides) m X X2 Grades 3-4 Teaching 4th Nine Week Skills 3-20-90 Judy Trowell 3-4 Using Calculators In the Classroom 3-20-90 Paula Smith 28 2-6 Using Manipuia-ti\\- es (Multicultural Guides) Using Manipulative s (Multicultural Guides) Using Manipula-tives (Multicultural Guides) Using Maniputative s (Multicultural Guides) Reduction of Racial Disparity In Academic Achievement m X X DD m X X2 m XX 2 UI m X X 2 o\u0026gt; m X Iw Ml in Team Learning 3-21-90 Betty McBride 18 Marcel line Carr k-12 Reduction of Racial Disparity In Academic Achievement Using Calculators in the Classroom Grades 3-4 Teaching 4th Nine Week Skills Cuisenai re Rods 3-22-90 3-24-90 3-26-90 Judy Trowel1 Trish Killingsworth Judy Trowell 19 9 11 3-4 Using Manipula-tives (Multicultural Guides) 2-6 Reduction of Racial Disparity in Academic Achievement 4-9 Mult icultural Infusion 121 I'l M m X X ra M C uisenaire Rods 3-27-90 Judy Trowel1 5 4-8 Multicultural Infusion m X XE nl 'lath PAL Inservice 4-26-90 I BS Paula Smith Judy Trowel1 Dianne Wood 1 7 1-6 Reduction of Racial Disparity in Academic Achievement m X X m -I t)) 'lath PAL 1nservice 4-27-90 Paula Smith Judy Trowell Dianne Wood 23 1-6 Reduction of Racial Disparity in Academic Achievement m XX2 4k Cuisenaire and Base Ten 5-1-90 Paula Smith 20 k-6 Implementation of Multicultural Guides m XX E UI UI m X XE VS m X X o m X I E n LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 15 May 22, 1990 m X X 2 ho u TO: w FROM: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development lennis Glasgow, Supervisor of Science SUBJECT: Desegregation Plan Implementation Update m X X2 w m X X2 w The following desegregation activities completed since January 17, 1990: in science have been - Provided inservice training for on the elementary multicultural (see attached schedule). grade level teachers curriculum guides m X X 2 - Held secondary science multicultural curriculum development committee meetings (see attached schedu1e). tn - Held secondary science textbook adoption committee meetings (see attached schedule). m X X 2 - Held meetings to expand the Parkview Science Magnet Program (see attached schedule). m X X 2 bl 423 I 1 File: Deseg Update Report: Science Activity Minicourse Minicourse Minicourse Minicourse Minicourse Secondary Multicultural Committee Secondary Multicultural Committee Secondary Multicultural Committee Secondary Multicultural Committee SecDTidary Multicultural Committee Secondary Multicultural Committee Secondary Multicultural Committee Secondary Multicultural Committee Secondary Multicultural Committee Textbook Adoption Textbook Adoption Textbook Adoption Textbook Adoption Parkview Planning Parkview Planning Parkview Planning Page 1 Date Jan 23 90 Jan 30 90 Jan 30 90 Feb 13 90 Feb 26 90 Jan 31 90 Feb 3 90 Feb 22 90 Mar 8 90 Mar 21 90 Apr 12 90 Apr 24 90 May 10 90 May 1 90 Feb 13 90 Feb 27 90 Mar 7 90 Mar 27 90 Jan 25 90 Mar 22 90 May 8 90 Grade Responsible Relation to Deseg. m X X E I K 3 4  7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 Dennis Glasgow elementary multicultural guide Rene Carson Dennis Glasgow Rene Carson elementary multicultural guide elementary multicultural guide elementary multicultural guide Dennis Glasgow elementary multicultural guide Dennis Glasgow Multicultural Curriculum Guide Dennis Glasgow Multicultural Curriculum Guide Dennis Glasgow Multicultural Curriculum Guide Dennis Glasgow Multicultural Curriculum Guide Dennis Glasgow Multicultural Curriculum Guide Dennis Glasgow Multicultural Curriculum Guide Dennis Glasgow Multicultural Curriculum Guide Dennis Glasgow Multicultural Curriculum Guide Dennis Glasgow Multicultural Curriculum Guide Dennis Glasgow Multicultural content Dennis Glasgow Multicultural content Dennis Glasgow Multicultural content Dennis Glasgow Multicultural content 10-12 Dennis Glasgow Expand Parkview Magnet 10-12 Dennis Glasgow Expand Park view Magnet 10-12 Dennis Glasgow Expand Park view Magnet 424 m X X E to m X X o ba m X XE m X X B tn DO m X X m X XE 1 J I nI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 m X X 2 I April 23, 1990 dI TO: d Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development m X X 2 I FROM?h^f)^Marie A. McNeal, Supervisor of Social Studies and Foreign Languages hO SUBJECT: Desegregation Update for Social Studies and Foreign Languages m X X OD d The following desegregation activities have been completed or are currently in process from January 17 through June 22, 1990: Cd d Soc i a1 Studies m X X 2 d 1. 2. 3. id d 4. 5. 6. 7. Conducted a PET cycle for junior high school teachers Monitored above teachers Ensured that all students had the opportunity to participate in the state's History Day Contest (held March 24th) Multicultural curriculum guides (Grades 7 \u0026amp; 8)(May 18th) Multicultural curriculum guides typed and ready for printing (June 8) Obtain bids for printing multicultural guides (June 15th) Arrange for printing of multicultural guides (June 22nd) m X X 2 tn Foreign Languages m X X2 1. Conducted one (1) of two (2) sessions of Cooperative Learning Workshop 2. (April 1188tthh))\nsecond session scheduled May 2nd. Arranged for student attendance to Foreign Language Festival (held April 7th) m X X2 IP I ia 425 o\u0026gt; n READING DEPARTMENT - DESEGREGATION ACTIVITIES UPDATE (Since Last Update on January 26, 1990) d In addition to desegregation activities previously updated through January 26, 1990, the following activities have been or will be completed' during the 1989-90 school year by Reading Department Supervisor and staff. m X X DO Reading Programs I m X X5 January 30 and 31, 1990 - Shared strategies for at-risk students at Hall High School with content area teachers. N\u0026gt; Si si January 31, 1990 - Attended Central Arkansas Library and Junior League Renaissance meeting. February 1, 1990 - Attended State Literacy Awards. February 1, 1990 - Scheduled meeting for LRSD librarians\"Reading Aloud to Students.\" February 2, 1990 - Participated in meeting with Elaine Ferguson from Kingston, Jamaica. Shared multicultural ideas. February 8 and 9, 1990 - Held elementary reading teacher inservice at IRC regarding Computerized Program Management information. February 11, 1990 (Sunday) Participated in sectioning for State Speech Tournament. m X X DO m X X E m X X 00 cn m X Xm m X X TO u February 13, 1990 - Presented evening mini-course at Hall High School. Subject was \"Storytelling. Il February 15, 1990 - Held Secondary Reading Multiethnic Curriculum Committee Meeting at IRC. February 19, 1990 - Discussed pilot project for reading program with Mary Guinn at Carver Magnet. February 19, 1990 - Attended Early Childhood Task Force Meeting. 42B II READING DEPARTMENT - DESEGREGATION ACTIVITIES UPDATE Page 2 11 February 20 and 21, 1990 - Held Secondary Reading Teacher Inservice at IRC. m X X 2 February 20, 1990 - Attended Washington School Planning Committee Meeting. m X I E February 20, 1990 - Presented evening mini-course at Hall High School. \"Flexible Grouping. II Subject was m X X OD February 24, 1990 (Saturday) - Served as Storytelling Chairman for Arkansas State Speech Association. co February 26, 1990 - Attended Whole Language and Reading Recovery Conference at UALR in the evening. m X X 2 February 27, 1990 - Presented evening mini-course at Hall High School. \"Whole Language.\" Subject was m X X 5 C7I d d d d d d d d d March 1, 1990 - Held \"Teachers of Tomorrow\" Workshop at IRC. d m X X w March 1, 1990 - Attended Early Childhood Task Force Meeting. d March 6, 1990 - Honored volunteer readers at a reception at the IRC. d m X X 5 March 15, 1990 - Held Secondary Reading Multiethnic Curriculum Committee Meeting at IRC in evening to complete final draft of revised curriculum guide. d d March 17, 1990 (Saturday) - Attended Central Arkansas Reading Council Storytelling Workshop with Ashley Bryan as guest speaker. March 19, 1990 - Attended Literacy Day Awards Reception. March 23, 1990 - Held \"Teachers of Tomorrow\" Workshop at IRC for Chicot and Washington Elementary Schools.READING DEPARTMENT - DESEGREGATION ACTIVITIES UPDATE Page 3 m X X2 March 27, 1990 - Held \"Teachers of Tomorrow\" Workshop at IRC for Watson Elementary School. March 27, 1990 - Presented inservice for Four-Year-Old Teachers at IRC. March 27, 1990 - Presented Test-Taking Skills Workshop for parents at Wakefield Elementary School in evening. March 28, 1990 - Met regarding revision of kindergarten promotion regulations. April 3, 1990 - Assisted reading teachers with research project on students regarding reading/1earning styles. April 5 and 6, 1990 - Attended National Speech Association Meeting with emphasis on African American Literature and Community Strategies. m X X 2 m X IE m X X 2 m X X 2 tn nu April 10, 1990 - Held \"Teachers of Tomorrow\" Workshop at IRC for Hall and Central High Schools. m X Xw p April 12, 1990 - Held \"Teachers of Tomorrow\" Workshop at IRC for Parkview and McClellan High Schools. m X X 2 April 18, 1990 - Presented Whole Language Workshop for faculty at Pulaski Heights Elementary School. April 23, 1990 - Assisted teacher at Cloverdale Junior High School. April 24, 1990 - Assisted teacher at Booker Magnet Elementary. April 24, 1990 - Participated in Fulbright Elementary School's \"Storytelling for Children\" Festival. April, 1990 - Completed EPSF post-test and materials preparation. 428 h READING DEPARTfiENT - DESEGREGATION ACTIVITIES UPDATE Page 4 il m X X 03 KI April 24, 1990 - Participated in Parkview High School Storytelling Festival. April 25, 1990 - Assisted teachers at Booker and Franklin Elementary Schools. m X X 2 fQ kq April 26, 1990 - Attended Compensatory Educational Program Hearing at Arkansas Department of Education. m X X a co KQ IS ID April 30, 1990 - Assisted teacher at Franklin Elementary School. May 1 - May 11, 1990 - Administered TABE Post-Tests for Reading/Learning Labs and compiled pre and post-test data. May 1, 1990 - Assisted teacher at Booker Magnet Elementary School. May 2 - May 4, 1990 - Monitoring of Chapter I Program by State Department of Education. m X Xn m X X m in m X I o bh May 4, 1990 - Participated in Second Annual Storytelling Festival held at Watson Elementary School for seven LRSD schools. m X X2 May 14, 1990 - Presented Learning Styles Inservice for Ish Elementary School. May 15 - May 17, 1990 - Attended team meetings at Cloverdale Junior High School to plan restructured reading program. May 17, 1990 - Presented inservice for Four-Year-Old Teachers at IRC. May 25, 1990 - Held last Elementary Reading Teacher Meeting to finalize pre and post-test MAT-6 forms. May 31, 1990 - Completed evaluation of PAL Learning Lab program by analysis of test scores and use of evaluation design. 429 READING DEPARTMENT - DESEGREGATION ACTIVITIES UPDATE Page 5 Specialists and supervisors visited classrooms to assess activities, materials, strategies, resources, etc. in January through May, 1990. m X I Special assistance by reading specialists was provided for teachers, principals, students, and parents as follows: m X X I III - Teacher Assistance Plans (TAPS) - Faculty Inservices - Writing to Read Inservice (Washington School) - Parent Inservice for At-Risk Students - Principal/Teacher Conferences - Parent/Teacher/Principal Conferences - Parent Conferences - Individual Reading Inventories (special request) - Camp Pfeifer Inservices m X X E Cd m X X E m X X ro cn *I m X Xw at K m X Xo in 430 h bd bd  10 t HU li__ m X X w m X X m to m X X 2 co m X I E m X X E UI m X X E 9\u0026gt; m X X 2w m X X E to m X X OD M GO II m X X E .u STAFF DEVELOPMENT m X X 2 (J) m X X OD o\u0026gt; m X X2 43 J n LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 II April 20, 1990 R I TO\nFROM\nEstelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development Wmarvin Zimmerman, Director of Staff Development m X X co I SUBJECT\n1989-90 Desegregation Plan Update (September, 1989 - May, 1990) M I The following staff development activities coordinated by the Staff Development Department will have been completed or will be in process by the end of the 1989- 90 school year. Please note that additional staff development activities will I probably be included in content supervisors' updates. I -- Organized the Staff Development Department consisting of a Director and four (4) Specialists. -- Reviewed possible II prejudice reduction\" models and participated in training sessions sponsored by NCCJ. -- Conducted eight (8) district-wide classes for elementary teachers on cooperative/team learning. I -- Conducted seven (7) workshops on learning styles. -- Conducted twelve (12) cycles of TESA. I I -- Conducted ten (10) district-wide classes on classroom management. -- Conducted four (4) cycles of PET. -- Offered inschool workshops on Building Team Consensus. I -- Conducted inschool workshops on High Order Thinking Skill s. -- Coordinated Increasing Human Effectiveness training with AT\u0026amp;T. I -- Participated in Violence Prevention Training. I -- Conducted inschool workshops on Preventive Discipline. -- Conducted inschool workshops on Human Relations Skills and Parental Involvement. I -- Conducted inschool workshops on Building Self-Esteem and Motivation. I -- Coordinated approximately forty (40) minicourses. I -- Provided principals and teachers with technical assistance concerning individual school/teacher needs. I 432 m X : co w m X X co m X X E UI m X I E O) m X I E  -- Participated in the establishment of a Tri-district Resource Bank. -- Formed and participated in a Tri-district Staff Development Committee. II -- Organized a broad-based LRSD Staff Development Advisory Committee. -- Developed a research-based, district-wide staff development plan for the 1990-91 school year, consisting of a more effective and efficient management system, specific guidelines/regulations, methods of delivery of services, and record-keeping procedures. m X I E hO Purchased a computer system, TV and VCR, and several staff development video programs. m X I cn w II m X X cn m X I E cn II II m X I E O) II m X z: II II II fl 433 II m X X ro m X X n -I co II m X z DO tl X i X : UI II n n m X I E m X z n n I  m X I CD  GIFTED EDUCATION w  I m X X ro m X z CD tn m X X E o\u0026gt; I I ! a -  434 m X IM I Gifted and Talented Programs Desegregation Update M I. Conduct Staff Development with Gifted Specialists/ Facilitators (see attachment) 5/22/90 m X I E II. Enrich and observe all K-2 students. CO H Workshop conducted on May 11, 1990, by Judy Huie, G/T Specialist for Pulaski County. materials and units for K-2. Workshop. Workshop included use, of curriculum All G/T specialists included in m X I CD Curriculum units for K-2 copied and organized for all 36 schools. M Specialists checking out Units to prepare materials for 1990-91 school year. I Materials purchased for K-2 and distributed to all G/T Specialists. III. Research appropriate identification instruments/methods. I G/T office staff attended Agate Conference on February 28,- March 2, 1990. Gained information regarding minority identifi- I cation, learning styles and G/T programming. IV. Conduct Staff Development with Gifted Specialists/Facilitators I Productive Thinking Workshop Don Treffinger, CPS consultant, conducted Trainer to Trainers  Workshop on April 26, 1990. from Tri-District participated. G/T Specialists and Facilitators staff participated. (12 Specialists and G/T office Each district allotted 15 participants.) m X I ro -I tn m X T CD G) m X I E I I V. Tri-District Coordinators  Tri-Distrtict Coordinators met to coordinate Tri-District projects on the following dates: January 8, 1990 February 12, 1990 March 5, 1990 April 17, 1990 May 7, 1990  435.If Tl I. I HSIl St .1 f I Hc'Vf'biprnciit Ar t i v 11.1 nr Gi fted/Tal enter! Di rector/Superv i sr^r Mabel Donaldson H 'll xkshijii/Activity Topi c Date Instructor's Name and Organization Participants: Total // State G/T Supervi sors' Meeting Enrichment Activities for K-2 5/18/90 5/11/90  Fair Park G/T Overview anc 5/10/90 School/ Grade Level/ Content Relationship to LRSD Mi ssi on/ Deseg Plan Mable Donaldson G/T Supervisor LRSD Judy Huie, G/T Teacher, PCSSD 15 NA Program Implementation 36 Elementary G/T Specialists  Curriculum Development 1 11 co  I. II Identification Info Jr. High Quiz Bowl 5/9/90 Diane Rynders G/T Coordinator LRSD LRSD G/T Office All Staff Members 70+ !tudent  K-6 7-9 Program m X X ro Implementation ir Racial Disparity in Identification I, n Tri-District G/T Meeting 5/7/90 Differenti al Opportunities for G/T Students m X X ai I ). H Elementary Quiz Bowl 5/3/90 J I Tri-District Wkshop - II  Productive Thinking II 4/26/90 I State G/T Supervisors' Meeting 4/20/90 Tri-District G/T Meeting Counselors' Meeting 4/13/90 Bale Elementary meet with parents of G/T students 3/29/90 Mable Donaldson G/T Supervisor LRSD LRSD G/T Office Dr. Don Treffinger- Center for Creative Learning Diane Rynders G/T Coordinator LRSD Mable Donaldson G/T Supervisor LRSD Mable Donaldson G/T Supervisor LRSD Mable Donaldson Diane Rynders LRSD 3 NA * Program Implenentation and Coordination m X I  CD 110+ ! tudent: 4-6 Differential Opportunities for G/T Students at C( 45 15 3 All unselois app. 12 15- LRSD 15 - NLRSD 15 - PCSSD NA NA K-T2 K-6  Program 1 I m X X 00 I  Implementation *Program Implementation  Different Instruc- t^onal Needs of thcG/ * Program Implementa tion  Racial^Disparity' in Identification * Program Implementation * Racial Disparity in Identification * Program Implementation 43BI I p'jl) SI,.I f f IlfV'' I upiiiciil. Ar, I, i V i 11 f'\", H |).n' l.iiiont. Gi fted/Talented Di rcctor/Sijpervi sor Mabel Donaldson I nWorkshop/Acti vi ty Topic I 1. Carver Magnet - Identification and Characteristics of G/T Students Date 3/27/9C Instructor's Name and Organization Diane Rynders G/T Coordinator LRSD Participants: Total // all staf nembers I Annaul Review of G/T Program for Elem. G/T Speciali sts Western Hills District PAC Il Meeting to state G/T \n Supervisors' Meeting 3/23/90 3/20/90 3/16/90  K-2 Inservice at Pul. Hts. Elementary 3/13/90 I Annual Review of G/T Program for Elem. G/T Specialists 3/9/90 Mable Donaldson Diane Rynderrs LRSD Mable Donaldson G/T Supervisor LRSD Diane Rynders Coordinator LRSD Diane Rynders Coordinator LRSD Mable Donaldson Diane Rynders LRSD 18 15 15 7 7 School / Grade Level/ Content Relationship to LRSD Mi ssion/ Deseg Plan  K-6 Elementary G/T Specialists NA NA K-2 Teachers Elementary G/T Specialists Racial Dispari in Identification  Racial Dispari- in Identification * Program Implem* * Curr. Develop. * Program Implementation  Racial Di sparil in Identification  Program Implementation * Differential Instruction for G/T Students in -TP/jular r1a\ncrnnm * Racial Disparity if m X I E co m X I 2 m X I ro UI m X I E a Tri-District G/T Meeting 3/5/90 Mable Donaldson G/T Supervisor LRSD * 3 NA i. AGATE a Conference 3/1-2/90 State G/T Conference Various presenters 12 G/T K-12 Identification Program Impleme Curr. Develop. Racial Disparit in Identification  Program Impleme Racial Disparit in Identification   m X I 00 a Torrance Test of Creative Thinking 2/28/90 Dr. John Kaufman Scholastic Testing Services  3 NA a State G/T Supervisors' Meeting 2/16/90 Mable Donaldson Diane Rynders LRSD 15 NA L Tri-District I G/T Meeting 2/12/20 Mable Donaldson G/T Supervisor LRSD 3 NA 43- Program Impleme Currie. Develop Racial Disparity in Identification * Program Implementation  Racial Disparit in Identification * Currie. Develop *Prnnram Tmnlpml.tiicnt I.PSI) si.iff I\u0026gt;evf?I Ac t, ivi tics Gi fted/TalGnted Di rcctor/Supervi sor Mabel Donaldson Workshop/Activity Topic I Elementary Counselors' Meeting -\u0026gt; H Tri-Di strict G/T Meeting Date 1/8/90 Instructor's Name and Organization Mable Donaldson Diane Rynders LRSD Mable Donaldson GT Supervisor LRSD Participants: TotalI School/ H Grade Level/ Content all I elem. I counselors K-6 3 NA 1 Relationship to LRSD Mission/ Deseg Plan  Racial Disparit in Identification  Program Implementation * Racdal Disparit, in Identification m X I ro to M *  Currie. Develop. Program Implem. m X X DO   I n II  438 m X X CD \u0026lt;71 m X X E O) m X X EII I I II m X z tn I I m X I 5  H m X X ro n UI I o H H M H  m X X m X XR . FEDERAL PROGRAMS I m X X E 45b I H n I H m X X E O1 m X I E o\u0026gt; m X X E n n   431)I   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS  June 13, 1990  MEMORANDUM  TO: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation FROM:' J. J. Lacey, Jr., Director of Federal Programs  SUBJECT: 1989-90 DESEGREGATION PLAN/THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS UPDATE m X : co  Please find attached the Federal Programs Update for the 1989-90 Desegregation Plan, as requested by your office.  regarding this update, please feel free to contact me. If you have questions m X I ro JJLjr:let  Attachments tn m X I O)  m X X CD I   440 e o TJ o O O V CT O U 3 8-Z o a. \u0026lt;0 TJ C V, o o Q. 2  9 CT 8- o 2 2 O o o a tn  3 o o 3 U = 3 o 03 3 a o u 41 a o o e o e o 3 = \u0026amp; o - o  8- c o Q  0.0  3 M V) u c O Q. w V*) O \u0026lt;- -o    c a o 8- tu o u 3 8-3 O Q UJ o 3  u o c 3 c o a \u0026gt; 3 o X o i 3 tn CT Q o o. OJ c +-\u0026gt; O fO O XJ CL CD 3 +-\u0026gt; tn tn I nj tn H UI X o tn a m  c e  \u0026amp;1 5 C  O X CT IQ o CT   5 o 5 c c  tu UJ ? X s VI l! Q  o CT 3 3 o X ?: i -Q  U C  c n n c X UJ X H- O Q UJ o 3 e o I  Xi 3 o. u 7 X i 3 I O o c o e \u0026gt; O 8- 3 I c e 3 n  o u c 3 CT X CT X H- \u0026gt;- \u0026lt;-) VI \u0026lt; 3 ? 3 J e \u0026amp; ea a 3 OI H . 8-3 9! ' I \u0026lt; - O w e n CT s ja v3 UJ h I S i c c  o c u. o (J UJ =  1 o e 9 g .. 3 c o 3 1 3 3 1'5 o o I W ll X h S Oi u e 9 fM V9 e c o 3 1^3 o a T3 3 3 e ? 3 o. 3 e o i 31 II o *- oa 3 VJ 3 S 9 c U 9 * 11 tn o O) I- c fO --J T- \u0026lt;O  o (J 0) OJ -I E O CLI fO Q- O fO C O fO X -r- CU +J 0) tn fc CD O +J tn ex c O (D CD s- e tn Q. \u0026lt;D fO I O) CD X  -c E X -O tI LxJ o v- o 3 3  o * ** o X 3 o Q. V3 V) o o S: o c e 9 a o I 8-3 V\u0026gt; O UJ \u0026gt;O lHgLh 1 I\n85J8^3 02 2 225 UrfOXXUJX^ X UJ uu Q OXH-tn \u0026lt;  XUJXXX^XUJ xxo S^22Q25y^8tzaS\"a3S8i=: QMP*^35i^^apx^\u0026lt;5\"r**r5gggg Hh 3 3 UI U. A. OH- ^5* o o UI o X 5 UJ X VJ tn X UJ 5^1 o X 5 X 8 tn X 128 441 m X I m X z QD ai m X I E Oi m X X EI I 1989-90 STATUS UPDATE I APPLICATIONS STATUS A. Even Start Program Application submitted to USDOE I D. Math-Science Education Program State Department provides funding in a pass-through process I E. Foreign Language Programs State Department provides funding in a pass-through process  F. Gifted and Talented Program State Department provides funding in a pass-through process  I. Magnet Schools Application submitted to USDOE by the three school districts in Pulaski County. m X I  J. Drug Education Program State Department provides funding in a pass-through process -pi  L. star Schools Program Application submitted, including Arkansas, to USDOE m X I I UI Please note, if there is no status update on an application, this reflects that we have not been involved in a funding effort through the SEA nor a  direct submission. I will continue to watch for these funding opportunities for Federal assistance, as well as other funding possibilities. m X I n O) I I m X I n I I  44?II  II m X X 00 n m X X DO n Ol M m X X E O) n H m X X DO I nI I I VOCATIONAL EDUCATION I I m X I 00 UI 1 m X I E a\u0026gt; m X I I 1 I I 4-13II LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN UPDATE REPORT FOR SCHOOL YEAR 1989-90 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT JAMES A. MILLER, DIRECTOR  GOAL 1: IMPROVE INSTRUCTIONAL METHODOLOGY TO ENSURE EDUCATIONAL EQUITY IN THE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM. II Supervisors have been regularly visiting and monitoring programs for educational equity and instructional excellence. Schools and teachers monitored are reflected in weekly reports to the Director of Vocational Education and forwarded to Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development. II Instruction in Learning Strategies was conducted for all LRSD Vocational and Technical staff. (August 11, 89) Instruction in Classroom Management Techniques was conducted for Metropolitan II Area Center staff members. (October 12-13, 89) Vocational Special Needs Evaluators received training in evaluation procedures and equipment. (September 15 and October 11, 89) m X I 5 Tri-District meeting of support services (LRSD, NLR, PCSSD) was attended by Special Needs Evaluators, Counselors, and basic skills instructor. 89) (November 3, UI Business Education Supervisor attended LRSD bi-racial committee meeting on evaluation design and monitoring for major enhancement schools. (November 2, 89) m X I E Business Education Supervisor served on monitoring team for Rightsell School and wrote report for the team. (November 21, 89) o\u0026gt; * Business Education Supervisor served on monitoring team for Rockefeller School and wrote report for the team. (January 16, 90) m X I E if Met with Committee of State Advisory Council for Vocational Education to plan needed legislative actions for upcoming legislative session. (Feb. 8, 90) Attended Board Meeting of Vocational Industrial Clubs of America (VICA) (February 22, 90) Attended Local Directors of Vocational Education Meeting. (February 14-15, 90) Conducted City Future Business Leaders of America Conference for Business Education Students. (February 16, 90) Attended Distributive Education Clubs of Arkansas (DECA) State Conference. (March 3,4,5, 90) Business Education Supervisor attended the American Vocational Association Policy Commission meeting, Washington, D.C. (March 9,10, 90) 444 i I I I n n H  * * * * * * * * * * * I * Attended VICA State Skills Olympics as contest coordinator. (March 19 - 24, I 90) * Business Education Supervisor served as a member of monitoring team for Major Enhancement School, Stephens Elementary School. (March 27, 90) 11 * Attended Advisory Committee Meeting, McClellan Business Education Department. (March 29, 90) I * Attended JTPA Private Industry Council (PIC) meetings as PIC member. (March 1, I    April 20, May 3, 90) * Attended employer appreciation functions sponsored by vocational cooperative education programs. (March 8, March 15, 20, April 11, 16, 25, May 2, 3, 10, 1990) * Trade and Industrial Supervisor worked with LRSD Special Education personnel on revising interview forms for the Cosmetology program at Metropolitan Area Center. * Business Education Supervisor was speaker at Health Occupations Employer Appreciation Luncheon at Baptist Medical Center. (April 16, 1990) * Attended Coordinated Career Education Clubs of Arkansas (CCECA) State Conference as contest coordinator. (April 27, 90) m X I ro  * Director chaired meeting of Business/Communications Magnet School Planning Committee. (April 12, 90) tn I * Attended State Future Business Leaders of America Conference, Chaired contest. Little Rock. (April 20,21, 90) m X I ro * Attended State conference of Phi Beta Lambda (post-secondary branch of Future I Business Leaders of America) as contest judge. (April 26, 90) I I * Met with co-chair of Business/Communications Magnet School Planning Committee to plan further activities and responsibilities of committee. (May 3, 90) * Attended Junior High School Future Business Leaders of America State Conference, Conway. (May 4, 90) m X I E I GOAL 2: AWARENESS SESSIONS LITTLE ROCK'S HIGH SCHOOLS OTHER APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS TO PUBLICIZE TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE. * Attended Rotary Club meeting with four Metropolitan students, Sept. 25, 89 * All LRSD Junior High School Career Orientation classes have been scheduled for a field trip to Metropolitan by the Vocational Counselor, information about programs offered and tour the facility, will tour Metropolitan each year under this on-going arrangement. Students are given All LRSD Sth graders 445I  * Hosted meeting of Little Rock Professional Business Women's Association at Metropolitan Area Center. (August 24, 89) I * The Metropolitan Area Center newspaper mailed to all sending schools, Advisory Council members, and other selected individuals. (Sept. 29, 89 and December, 89) I * Metropolitan staff members have made numerous appearances at local high schools and junior high schools for the purpose of publicizing the training  opportunities available to all students at Metropolitan. (March-Apri1-May, 1990) * Pulaski County Principals toured Metropolitan, (1/17/90) H Violence Prevention Curriculum was completed by Metropolitan staff, (1/29 - 2/2/90)  * * Aids Presentation given to Metropolitan students. (2/21/90) Assembly presentations made on Metro to students in all LRSD Jr. High and Sr.  High schools except Central. (4/1 through 5/4/90) Mr. Reville toured Metropolitan (2/1/90) H * Metro hosted the city wide FBLA competitions (2/16/90) m X I 2 * Metro Associate Director attended Treadway Electric open house. (3/28/90) II O1 * Director and Associate Director visited England administration about sending students to Metro. (3/12/90) II * Director and Associate Director visited Lonoke administration about sending students to Metro. (3/26/90) II * Mailed brochures about Metro to Pulaski County and Little Rock School District 10th and 11th grade students. (4/10/90) II * Developed posters on Metro to be distributed throughout service area. (4/15/90) * [fl Associate Director and Counselor attended Chamber of Commerce Industrial Appreciation fish fry. (5/3/90) * Mailed brochures on Metro to Bryant 10th and 11th graders. (5/7/90) [fl GOAL 3: MORE SCHOOL-WIDE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES TO REINFORCE HUMAN RELATIONS AT METROPOLITAN AREA VOCATIONAL CENTER. * A school-wide picnic was held for morning, afternoon and extended day sessions at Metropolitan to promote cohesiveness and human relations. All staff members and students participated. October 11, 89. * Red Ribbon day proclaiming Metropolitan's commitment to a drug free campus. Students participated in rally at State Capitol. October 25, 1989 m X I 2 a\u0026gt; m X I 2 4 4 BII     n   * \"Beastley Beauty\" contest - fun day activity involving approximately 60 students with entire student body attending function. October 31, 1989 * Assistant Director attended the Bi-Racial Advisory Committee meeting. (December 18, 1989) * Staff luncheon including custodial and support staff. (Jan. 5, 90) Continental breakfast for Metropolitan staff members, sponsored by the Special Needs evaluator, counselor and basic skills instructor. (December 15, 89) * * staff luncheon including custodial and support staff. (5/6/90) Picnic for new students coming to Metro, 90-91. (6/7/90) GOAL 4: UPGRADE COURSES, EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL METHODOLOGY TO REFLECT CURRENT AND PROJECTED TECHNOLOGY FOR JOB-MARKET NEEDS. * Bromberg and Associates, Inc., has offered to worked with all Cooperative Programs in an effort to show a need to young people for more education. Employees of this company provide time to students for a learning exchange. * Regular meetings have been set for all programs to meet with supervisors to discuss curriculum, classroom, equipment and renovations needs. * New high-tech junior high school programs called \"Exploring Industrial Technology Education II were instituted with the beginning of school year 89-90, at Mabelvale, Cloverdale and Dunbar Junior High Schools, replacing Industrial Arts. This program was installed at Henderson Junior High School for school year 88-89. The program will be installed at all other junior high schools in the next three years. m X X 00 UI m X X n  I * The Tri-District Directors of Vocational Education (Little Rock, Pulaski County Special and North Little Rock) are meeting together on a monthly basis to discuss problems, plans, areas of possible cooperation, and a general exchange of ideas. Meetings held on September 19, 1989\nOctober 17, 1989\nNovember 2, 1989\nand January 12, February 14, April 12, 1990. O) m X I * Tri-District Special Needs Personnel (LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD) first semi-annual I meeting to discuss areas of cooperation, articulation, and coordination of services to special needs students in vocational programs. (November 3, 89) * Workshops, conferences and/or inservice training have been arranged or provided n for Vocational Department staff and LRSD Vocational teachers as follows: Exploring Industrial Technology Education courses June 12-30, 89 Marketing Education Workshop, UCA, June 12-13, 89 VICA National Conference, Tulsa, OK, June 26-30, 89 E.I.T.E. Classes June 17 - August 4, 89 LRSD Career Orientation Workshop August 1, 89 E.I.T.E. Workshop (VTED) August 2-4, 89 AVA Conference, Pine Bluff, AR, August 14, 89 LRSD Cooperative Program Teacher/Coordinators Inservice August 7, 89 AEA Conference October 12-13, 89 447I I I I I I I I Vocational Department Inservice for all LRSD Vocational Teachers August 22, 89 Career Orientation Inservice Workshop (VTED), Hot Springs, Aug 1-2, 89 Desktop Publishing Workshop, VTED, August 7-9, 89 Home Economics Inservice Workshop, VTED, Little Rock, August 8-10, 89 LRSD Trade and Industrial Inservice Meeting, August 9, 89 Microsoft Works software workshop, LRSD Business Teachers, August 16, 89 New LRSD E.I.T.E. teachers inservice workshop. August 17-18, 89 Tri-District meeting, NLR Northeast H.S., August 18, 89 Multicultural Fair, Parkview, August 22, 89 Principals Institute, July 31-August 2, 89 Inservice Training for Special Needs Personnel, VTED, August 15-17, 89 CNC CAD-CAM Inservice, VTED (Foothills V.T.), September 27-29 Arkansas Electrification Council appliance workshop, Jacksonville, Aug. 16, 89 Business Ed. teacher committee meeting on \"Superwrite\" software, Sept. 12, 89 Special Needs Evaluation Inservice, Oct 18, 89 Arkansas Business Education Association meeting, Oct. 8-9, 89 Networking Workshop, Nov. 6, 89 COE Application Blank revision meeting, Nov. 16, 89 Competency Test result discussion and implications. Business Ed., Dec. 12, 89 American Vocational Association National Conference, Dec. 1-5, 89 Marketing Education teachers (LRSD) inservice meeting, January 11, 90 Industrial Coop. Training teachers (LRSD) inservice meeting, January 12, 89 Coordinated Career Education teachers (LRSD) inservice meeting, January 16, 89 Exploring Industrial Technology Education II, course, June 11-29, 90, Metro Exploring Industrial Technology Education I, course, July 30 - Aug 17, 90 m X X E tn I 1 I I d METROPOLITAN INSTRUCTORS ATTENDED THE FOLLOWING INSERVICE DURING THIS PERIOD: Lauback Training (Belford) August 14-15, 89 Special Needs Inservice (Thessing) August 15-17, 89 CNC CAD-CAM (Thacker) Sept. 27-29, 89 AASCD Sponsored Training, 4MAT (Allen) Oct. 4-6, 89 AVA Board meeting (Jones, Blacknall) Oct. 5, 89 Vision/Hearing Screening (Matthews) Oct 5-6, 89 Microcomputer Repair (Harris, Purdy) Oct. 10-11, 89 HOE/HOSA Advisory (Jones) Oct. 13, 89 Vocational Evaluation as a Resource (Spl. Needs Personnel) Oct 18, 89 Automotive Technician workshop, Memphis, Tenn., (Roberts) Oct. 23, 89 Violence Prevention workshop (Vinsant) Nov. 16-17, 89 NAABAVE National Conference, Little Rock (Blacknall, Perry), Oct 25-29, 89 VICA Industry Council, (Jones, Noor), Jan. 17, 90 I * m X I E O) m X I E Specifications were prepared, disseminated, and bids have been taken on new typewriters for 3 schools. * Met with LRSD Vocational Education Advisory Council, September 13, December 13, 89, and March 14, May 8, and June 13, 1990. * Worked with LRSD Vocational Education Advisory Council in planning and hosted a breakfast function for local business and industrial leaders at Metropolitan Area Center, to orient them to Metropolitan and its purposes, and tour the facility. A survey of employer needs was conducted as part of this function. 89) (December 6, 448* Met with Parkview Business Education Advisory Committee Sept. 27, 89 * Prepared and delivered to VTED Applications for Program Approval for all Vocational and Technical programs in LRSD and at Metropolitan. Oct 1, 89. * Met with Hall Business Education Advisory Committee September 26, 89 * Prepared and submitted to Purchasing Department specifications for bid on new I specialized computer equipment for a pilot Desktop Publishing program at Parkview, obtained and installed equipment. (Oct. 89) * Met with Metropolitan Electronics Advisory Committee August 24, 89. * Met with Metropolitan Health Occupations Advisory Committee September 12, 89, and March 1, 90) * Attended Partners in Education meeting September 21, 89 * Met with Metropolitan Automotive Advisory Committee September 14, 89 II Automotive program at Metropolitan evaluated by representatives of the National Automotive Technicians Education Foundation, Inc. (ASE/NATEF) for the purpose of national recognition and certification of the Automotive Technician training m X z 00 program. Program fully certified as a result. (October 4-5, 89) UI Preparations are under way for national certification by the American Association of General Contractors (AGC) for the Building Trades program at Metropolitan Area Center. Evaluation by AGC for this certification will be accomplished before the end of school year 89-90. All forms and documentation m X I E submitted. Awaiting on-site team visit to complete certification. (May, 1990) O) I * * * Vocational Department staff members participated in the American Vocational Association annual convention at Orlando, Fla., to update knowledge, learn of upcoming legislation and increase technical knowledge. (December 1-5, 89) I ilf Hosted computer-aided-manufacturing vendors software evaluation for local m X I E industrial and business interests. (3/7/90) 1 * Business Education Supervisor taught an adult class at the Ark. Highway Dept. building in Superwrite, a course to be added to the LRSD Curriculum next year. (10 class sessions, concluded April 30, 1990) I * Kirkpatrick Associates and Chamber of Commerce representatives met to discuss plans for 1990/91 to inform parents of opportunities at Metropolitan. I GOAL 5: INCREASE MINORITY STAFF REPRESENTATION IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION.  On-going list of minority potential applicants is maintained in the Vocational Director's office. * All minority applications or inquiries are forwarded to the Human Resources Department for further action. 449I * A new staff opening at Metropolitan in Auto Body and Paint Technology program was filled by a minority applicant. * No vacancies occurred for which applications were taken for vocational teachers in LRSD high schools or junior high schools. I  I m X I tn m X I m a\u0026gt; I m X I n I I 450 m X I CD cn m X I O) m X z E  IJl I .Jj Bl 9k99 EH0 B LIBRARY MEDIA SERVICES m X X 03 o\u0026gt; I 45 I H m X XE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas June 11, 1990 72201 TO: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent - Desegregation FROM: Jim Hardwick, Supervisor Instructional Technology Lucy Lyon, Library Coordinator THROUGH: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs \u0026amp; Staff Development SUBJECT: Desegregation Update This report is a second semester update of activities related to the Technology Department's responsibilities in the 89-90 Desegregation Plan. I. TASKS COMPLETED - Conducted inservice for library media specialists on these dates: January 7, February 13, March 13, April 10, May 8, and June 13. Coordinated computer inservices for the library staff on January 30 and 31st and March 29th as some library tasks start to be automated on computers (eg. audio-visual requests, monthly and annual reports. m X I m overdue lists, etc.) as part of the new library program. Proposed 90-91 o\u0026gt; year inservice opportunities for principals, new teachers, and current school staff on the elements of and changes in, the new library program. Revised Board Policy and guidelines on selection and review of library materials as part of the new library program. m X I E s - Drafted a comprehensive long-range audio-visual purchase/maintenance plan designed to assure that all students have reasonable access to the A-V equipment needed to support various learning styles. This plan included recommendations for funding, items to be purchased, purchase cycle, repairs including preventive measures, replacement in case of loss (theft), etc. and extensive property accounting procedures. il Implemented an interim A-V maintenance program which initially included a school by school review of equipment, restoring over 300 A-V equipment items equipment to service which needed only minor repairs. As part of . as the review, several thousand dollars in parts were identified necessary to bring many more pieces of equipment back into service. These items have been ordered so that repair work can proceed over the summer. Delivered film/video/kits per the District's schedule during the 2nd semester. Completed District film/video/kit ordering and booking process for the fall of 1990. 45? ni I - Ordered core library materials centrally in a manner which allowed for equity across the District and which drastically reduced the number of man-hours District-wide, committed to requisitioning and clearing orders. - Compiled recommendations on procedures to reduce the number of man hours required to assure that the new elementary library program at each school meets applicable standards on per pupil expenditures, allowing more time to be spent on instructional opportunities with students at each school site. - Negotiated contracts with a number of instructional video companies in order not only to return audio-visual resources to the pre-annexation level, but to exceed that level in both offerings and effectiveness. m X I E Oi m X I E II 453m X I m O) m X I 00fl SPECIAL EDUCATION m X X E Ji 4 54 SPECIAL EDUCATION DESEGREGATION UPDATE Goal 1: To ensure equity in representation of black males in special education through a comprehensive staff development program and the Learning Center. Obiective 1\nProvide inservice that focuses on teacher behavior toward a disproportion of minority students especially black 8/89 males in special education. Provided inservice to bus drivers and aides on managing students' behavior. 8/89 Interviewed and selected Learning Center teacher. 8/89 Provided inservice to paraprofessionals in self-contained classes on Crisis Prevention. 8/89 Began identification of students for Learning Center. 9/89 Interviewed and hired Learning Center Supervisor. 1/90 Provided inservice to speech therapists on modifications and implementing the lEP in the regular classroom. 3/90 Scheduled meetings with all speech therapists to review strategies for meeting needs of diverse population. 5/90 Continued efforts to identify Learning Center students for 1990-91. Obiective 2: Provide intensive inter-disciplinary interventions for students whose social and emotional behavior make it difficult to advance academically\nstudents who show slow patterns of development which may produce erroneous test scores. 9/89 Reviewed scripts for social skills tape and began filming tape. 9/89 Began working in regular classrooms to apply pre-referral interventions. 11/89 Reviewed social skills tape and made plans for refinement. 1/90 Continued working with individual teachers of Learning Center students. 2/90 Continued implementation of comprehensive behavior management/ social skills plan for Learning Center. 3/90 Continued working with individual teachers of Learning Center students. 3/90 Ordered social skills materials for training. 455 m X I E-? Special Education Desegregation Update Page 2 4/90 Conducted training for secondary resource teachers, self- contained SED teachers, and Learning Center staff on social skills. I. t. 4/90 Ordered materials for coming school year. 4/90 Restructured social skills materials for use in regular classrooms. 5/90 Ordered and received materials for 1990-91. Objective 3: Provide inservice that focuses on teacher behavior toward a disproportion of minority students, especially black males in special education. I I 10/89 Conducted inservice for all counselors on the Learning Center concept and criteria for referral. I 10/89 Provided inservice for all principals on Learning Center concept and criteria for referral. 10/89 Began working with individual teachers of Learning Center students. 12/89 Planned TESA inservice for junior high special education resource teachers. 12/89 Special education teachers participated in TESA training at local schools. 1/90-5/90 Special education supervisors were trained in TESA. I Objective 4: Ensure the following: Assist black males in developing adaptive skills. 9/89 Continued process to identify students to be served in Learning Center. m X I n 9/89 Ordered and disseminated materials/supplies for Learning Center. 9/89 Began developing behavior management programming for Learning Center students. 10/89 Scheduled Parent Meeting and invited parents from all three districts. 10/89 Met with Junior League and Arkansas Children's Hospital representatives to discuss community involvement in providing services for students through volunteer efforts. 12/89 Met with Junior League and Arkansas Children's Hospital to further refine plans for volunteer efforts. 12/89 Met with parents at Pulaski Heights Junior High to discuss issues of placement and due process in open forum. 4 SBSpecial Education Desegregation Update Page 3 12/89 1/90 Worked with individual teachers and parents of Learning Center students. Developed plans for expansion of parent component of Learning Center. w 1/90 Continued to identify population for Learning Center and to begin transition process for some students. 1 2/90 3/90 3/90 4/90 4/90 5/90 5/90 Scheduled parent meeting and invited parents from all three school districts. Held meeting with parents of Learning Center students to identify training needs. Scheduled parent meeting with parents of all three districts. Held parent meeting for Learning Center parents. Scheduled parent meeting and invited parents from all three districts. Conducted additional parent meetings at Learning Center. Adapted social skills materials for use in regular classrooms. Objective 5\nEnsure increased equity in instructional methodology through a comprehensive staff development program and through participation in regular classes. 9/89 9/89 9/89 11/89 11/89 12/89 12/89 1/90 Continued installation of computers in all elementary and junior high schools. Consulted with Library and Media supervisor concerning inservice on computers. Provided inservice to elementary teachers on new textbooks for reading. Conducted inservice with all special education teachers on documentation of least restrictive environment. Completed inservice with all junior high resource teachers on use of computers and documentation of least restrictive environment. Planned TESA for junior high special education teachers. Special education teachers participated in TESA through local schools. Identified additional students eligible for indirect services. R. I 9 m X I TO 4 5 / I Special Education Desegregation Update Page 4 1/90 Disseminated information about indirect services to all schools. 1/90 2/90 3/90 4/90 4/90 GOAL 2: Reassigned staff to provide indirect services. Attended State conference on provision of indirect services. Increased number of students served through indirect services. Learning Strategies teachers were trained in social skills. Adapted social skills materials to be used in regular and Learning Center. Refine and expand the monitoring system to gather data for conducting a longitudinal study of special education procedures. ft. Objective 1\nRefine the monitoring and evaluation process in the District. 9/89 9/89 9/89 9/89 10/89 11/89 Balanced self-contained classes by race, gender, and needs. Reviewed Corrective Action form in order to provide improved assistance in monitoring visits. Scheduled pre-monitoring visits with priority schools. Identify monitoring schedule for current school. Began monitoring process in priority schools. Continued monitoring process in schools. 12/89 1/90 Continued monitoring process. Continued monitoring process of priority schools. 2/90 3/90 5/90 Continued monitoring process. Completed on-site monitoring visits of due process records. Had on-site monitoring visit by Arkansas Department of Education. m X I E Objective 2\nTo engage in data collection for a longitudinal study of placement practices in the District. 9/89 10/89 12/89 Began identifying schools with disproportionality in representation within special education programs. Provided inservice for all principals on Action Plan development to address overrepresentation issues. Communicated with priority schools regarding overrepresentation of minority students to began developing and implementing action plans. 458Special Education Desegregation Update Page 5 12/90 Met with assistant superintendent and special education supervisors to discuss priority schools for action plans. 1/90 Continued development of action plans with individual schools. 2/90 Reviewed action plans submitted by schools. 4/90 Conducted follow-up monitoring of priority schools vdiere corrective action was urgent and/or critical. 5/90 Identified schools for additional special education classes for 1990-91 school year. 5/90 Completed classrolls and assignments for 1990-91 school year. GOAL 3: Ensure equity in special education by reducing overrepresentation of minority students enrolled in programs. Objective 1\nProvide assistance in reducing the overrepresentation of minority students in special education. 9/89 Provided inseirvice to local schools on referral and placement procedures. 9/89 Attended conference on Adaptive Behavior with Psychological Examiners and Special Education Supervisors. 10/89 Established a monthly meeting time with psychological examiners to review and discuss practices in assessment, criteria for placement, overrepresentation, adaptive behavior, etc. 11/89 Met with HIPPY Program Coordinators on due process procedures. 11/89 Scheduled and conducted monthly meeting with examiners. 12/89 Conducted inservice on Extended Year Services and data gathering. m X I ro 12/89 Scheduled and attended monthly meeting with examiners to discuss overrepresentation issues. 1/90 Developed plans for scheduling meetings with Special Education Committee to review Appraisal Guide, documentation and departmental needs. 1/90 Scheduled meetings with all junior high teachers and principals to review concerns about students' needs. 1/90 Reassigned staff to provide indirect services for students more appropriately. 1/90 Provided inservice to speech therapists on modifications and implementing lEP in the regular classroom. 1/90 Identified additional students eligible for indirect services. 459Special Education Desegregation Update Page 6 1/90 Disseminated information about indirect services to all schools. 2/90 Met with psychological examiners to discuss placement issues. 2/90 Attended State conference on provision of indirect services.  3/90 Reviewed disciplinary procedures for handicapped students with all principals. 3/90 Increased number of students served through indirect services. 4/90 Met with junior high principals to discuss restructuring of special education programs. 4/90 Met with examiners in regular monthly meeting. 4/90 Met with examiners to review disciplinary procedures for handicapped students. I.A. 4/90 Met with special education staff in four junior highs to begin process for restructuring and scheduled weekly meetings. 5/90 Refined plans for Extended Year Services. 5/90 Met with examiners to discuss LRE issues. 5/90 Continued meetings with junior high special education teachers to discuss restructuring. 5/90 Identified students for Extended Year Services. 5/90 Met with principals in schools with self-contained classes to discuss better delivery of services for high risk population. 5/90 Refined plans to make on-site visits of restructured schools. m X I Objective 2\nTo reduce by ten percent over a five year period the number of minority students enrolled in SLD population. 9/89 Began identifying schools with disproportionality in representation within special education programs. 10/89 Provided inservice for all principals on Action Plan development to address overrepresentation issues. 10/89 Establidied a monthly meeting time with psychological examiners to review and discuss practices in assessment, criteria for placement, overrepresentation, adaptive behavior, etc. 11/89 Scheduled and conducted monthly meeting with examiners. 12/90 Communicated with priority schools regarding overrepresentation of minority students to begin developing and implementing action plans. 4 GOSpecial Education Desegregation Update Page 7 12/89 Met with assistant superintendent and special education supervisors to discuss priority schools for action plans. 12/89 Scheduled and attended monthly meeting with examiners to discuss oveirrepresentation issues. 1/90 Continued development of action plans with individual schools. 1/90 Scheduled meetings with all junior high teachers and principals to review concerns about students' needs. 1/90 Reassigned staff to provide indirect services for students more appropriately. 2/90 Reviewed action plans submitted by schools. 2/90 Met with psychological examiners to discuss placement issues. 4/90 Conducted follow-up monitoring of priority schools where corrective action was urgent and/or critical. 5/90 Identified schools for additional special education classes for 1990-91 school year. 5/90 Completed classrolls and assignments for 1990-91 school year. 5/90 Met with examiners to discuss LRE issues. 5/90 Continued meetings with junior high special education teachers to discuss restructuring. 5/90 Met with principals in schools with self-contained classes to discuss better delivery of services for high risk population. 6/90 Compiled end of year statistics on SLD. Objective 3\nTo reduce over a five year period by twenty percent the ntmber of students enrolled in mentally retarded and speech impaired population. 9/89 Began identifying schools with disproportionality in representation within special education programs. 10/89 Provided inservice for all principals on Action Plan development to address overrepresentation isssues. 10/89 11/89 Established a monthly meeting time with psychological examiners to review and discuss practices in assessment, criteria for placement, overrepresentation, adaptive behavior, etc. Scheduled and conducted monthly meeting with examiners. 12/89 Met with assistant superintendent and special education supervisors to discuss priority acdiools for action plans. m X I E 4 G1Special Education Desegregation Update Page 8 12/89 Scheduled and attended monthly meeting with examiners to discuss overrepresentation issues. 1/90 Continued development of action plans with individual schools. 1/90 Scheduled meetings with all junior high teachers and principals to review concerns about students' needs. 1/90 Reassigned staff to provide indirect services for students more appropriately. 2/90 Reviewed action plans submitted by schools. 2/90 Met with psychological examiners to discuss placement issues. 4/90 Conducted follow-up monitoring of priority schools vhere corrective action was urgent and/or critical. 5/90 Identified schools for additional special education classes for 1990-91 school year. 5/90 Completed classrolls and assignments for 1990-91 school year. 5/90 Met with examiners to discuss LRE issues. 5/90 Continued meetings with junior high special education teachers to discuss restructuring. 5/90 Met with principals in schools with self-contained classes to discuss better delivery of services for high risk population. 6/90 Compiled end of year statistics on MR/SI. GOAL 4: To ensure equity in staff for special education programs. Objective 1\nEnsure proportionate representation of well qualified minority special education teachers. 9/89-5/90 Worked with PCSSD/NLR and colleges to locate minority applicants. 9/89 Made reassignments of teachers to provide equitable access to services in schools. 9/89-5/90 Made referrals to UALR for Consulting Teacher Training. 12/89 Reassigned staff to more effectively meet needs of students in least restrictive environment. 12/89 Met with president of Advisory Council to recruit new members representative of district in race, gender, and handicap. 4/90 Scheduled meeting with UALR to discuss/implement plans for minority recruitment. m X I E 4GPH Special Education Desegregation Update Page 9 0 5/90 Met with representatives of UALR to plan teacher training activities for 1990-91. H GOAL 5: To ensure improved quality and equity in materials and supplies provided to handicapped students.  n Objective 1: Special education teachers will demonstrate systematically that high quality effective special instruction is being provided through the use of varied, innovative, and appropriate materials and supplies. 8/89 Identified members of Special Education Committee. ia 8/89 H 9/89 H 10/89 Began installation of computers in all junior high and elementary schools. Contacted venders and scheduled meeting to review materials with Special Education Committee. Conducted meeting with Special Education Committee in order to review new materials and make recommendations. I I 2/90 n 3/90 Met with Special Education Conmittees (elementary, junior, and senior high) to discuss needs for 1990-91. Disseminated Special Education Newsletter with innovative ideas for teaching. Held cluster meetings with speech therapists to share materials.  4/90 Ordered materials selected by Special Education Committee. II 5/90 5/90 Received materials ordered by Committee. II 5/90 Identified special education teachers for district comnittee to identify materials for new programs. Social skills materials were adapted. m X X DO II GOAL: 3/90 II 4/90 5/90 5/90 Vocational programs for handicapped students will be expanded. Met with Central Office supervisors to discuss needs in vocational programming. Made plans to pilot a program at SWJH and add vocational component to self-contained class. Teacher at SWJH made on-site visits to vocational programs. Met with Director of Vocational Education, non-profit agency, and PCSSD to develop grant proposal for handicapped students to receive vocational training. Sutmitted proposal. 4B3 p 1 Special Education Desegregation Update Page 10 GOAL: 9/89 12/89 1/90 1/90-5/90 The Consulting Teacher Model will be expanded to provide indirect services to mildly handicapped students. Indirect students were identified. Teacher was recommended to provide indirect services. Services were provided by consulting teacher. Classroll for indirect services was expanded to serve thirty-five (35) students. Over sixty (60) are identified for 1990-91. 4{\u0026gt; 4 IR.\ne 1 m X X E n H TRI-DISTRICT PLAN 9/89 Developed a needs assessment instrument to be used by all three districts. n 9/89 Attended Pulaski County Cooperative Meeting. II 10/89 Attended Pulaski County Cooperative Meeting. 10/89 II Established Tri-Dist\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_829","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, order, 907 F.2d 76; District Court, order; 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":["1990-07"],"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":["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, order, 907 F.2d 76; District Court, order; 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/829"],"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_1164","title":"Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1990-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1164"],"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\nCombined financial statements and supplemental information with independent auditors' reports by Thomas and Thomas, certified accountants\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n     THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Financial Statements and Supplemental Information (~ith Independent Auditors' Reports Thereon) June 30, 1990  '  THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Financial Statements and Supplemental Information (~ith Independent Auditors' Reports Thereon) June 30, 1990 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Table of Contents June 30, 1990 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - All Governmental Fund Types Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual - All Budgeted Governmental Fund Types Notes to Financial Statements SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES Combining Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures - Special Revenue Funds Rockefeller Day Care Center - Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures (Cash Basis) - Budget and Actual Revenues of Teachers Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds (Basis of Accounting as prescribed by Handbook II) Expenditures of Teachers Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds (Basis of Accounting as prescribed by Handbook II) Reconciliation of General and Debt Service Fund Balances - Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Handbook II Basis of Accounting Schedule of Long-Term Debt OTHER REPORTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Independent Auditors' Report on Internal Controls (Accounting and Administrative) - Based on a Study and Evaluation Made as a Part of an Audit of the Basic Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the Additional Tests Required by the Single Audit Act Page No. 1 4 6 8 12 27 28 29 30 31 32 35 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Table of Contents (Continued) June 30, 1990 Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance Based on an Audit of the Basic Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance with General Requirements Applicable to Major Federal Financial Assistance Programs Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance with Specific Requirements Applicable to Major Federal Financial Assistance Programs Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance with Requirements Applicable to Nonmajor Federal Financial Assistance Program Transactions Independent Auditors' Report on Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance Page No. 39 40 41 43 44 45 :Zk,\niu an/ !iZ.,md CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Llltle Rock Office: 201 E. Markham  Suite 500  Lillie Rock. AR 72201 (50 11 375-2025  FAX (501) 3758704 Texarkana Oll1ce: 701 Arkansas Blvd.  Texarkana, AR 75502 (501) 773-2168  FAX (501) 774.7240 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District) as of, and for the year ended, June 30, 1990, as listed in the accompanying table of contents. The financial statements are the responsibility of the School District's management . Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. As described more fully in Note 1 (F) of the financial statements, the School District does not record the valuation base of its property, buildings, and equipment at historical cost in the general fixed asset group of accounts as required by generally accepted accounting principles. In our opinion, except for the effect of the failure to record the general fixed asset account group at historical cost, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, the combined financial statements referred to in the first paragraph present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas as of June 30, 1990, and the results of its operations for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. 1 Members American lnslttute of Certified Public Accountants Private Companies Practice Section and S. E.C. Prac11ce Sectron I The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Two Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the combined financial statements taken as a whole. The information included at pages twentyseven through thirty-three is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic combined financial statements. The information has been subjected to the procedures applied in the audit of the basic combined financial statements of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the combined financial statements taken as a whole. As discussed in Note 13 to the financial statements, the School District is party to several legal actions regarding expenses and other issues. The ultimate outcome of these legal actions cannot presently be determined. Accordingly, no provision for any payables that may result has been made in the accompanying combined financial statements or schedules. November 16, 1990 Little Rock, Arkansas 2 Certified Public Accountants FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 3 Assets and Amounts to be Provided Cash (Note 10) $ Investments (Note 10) Property taxes receivable (Note 3) Accrued interest and other receivables Due fro  other governments (Notes 8 and 11) Due fro  other funds Inventories Fixed assets (Notes l(F) and 4) Prepaids and deferred charges Total assets A ount available in debt service funds Amount to be provided for retire-ment of general long-term debt Total assets and amounts to be provided $ THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups June 30, 1990 Govern  ental Fund Tr11es Fiduciary Special Debt Capital Fund Tr11e General Revenue Service Projects Agencr 741,986 250 244,548 35,647 4,940,000 1,450,000 3 , 500,000 775,000 2,466,897 738,406 266,199 6,482 1,554 7,309,571 536,868 35,625 793,149 63,814 405,755 96,120 9 305 263 673,401 15,397,727 2,867,344 1,412,057 4,539,251 874,461 15,397,727 2,867,344 1.412,057 4,539,251 874,461 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial state ents. 4 Account GrOUQS General General Total Fixed Long-Term (Me111orandUJ1 Assets Debt Onlrl $ 1,022,431 10,665,000 3,205,303 274,235 7,846,439 892,588 501,875 134,197,617 134,197,617 682,969 134,197,617 159,288,457 98,639 98,639 52,415,960 52,415,960 134,197,617 52,514,599 $ 211,803.056 (Continued) Liabilities and Fund Eguitv Liabilities: Bank overdrafts Accounts payable and accrued eirpenses Accrued payroll taxes and withholdings Deferred revenues Due to school activity groups and other agencies (Notes 2 and 9) Dua to other funds Note payable (Note 12) Long-term debt payable {Note 5) Contracts payable Total liabilities Commitments and contingencies (Notes 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13) Fund Equity: Investment in general fixed assets {Notes l(f) and 4) Fund Balance: Reserved for prepaids and deferred charges Reserved for inventories Unreserved: Designated for debt service Designated for capital projects Undesignated Total fund equity (Note 2) Total liabilities and fund equity LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups (Continued) June 30, 1990 Governmental Fund TyPes Special Debt General Revenue Service $ 3,051,737 2,230,911 2,636,381 155,000 252,571 6,532,150 12 175 14,870,925 9,305 405,755 111, 742 526,802 $ 15,397.727 38,615 376,514 415,129 263 96,120 2,355,832 2,452,215 2,867,344 640,017 640 017 673,401 98,639 772 040 1.412,057 Capital Projects 394,488 394,488 4,144,763 4,144,763 4,539,251 Fiduciary Fund Type Agency 874,461 874,461 874,461 Account Groups General General Fixed Long-Term Assets Debt 52,514,599 52,514,599 134,197,617 134,197,617 134,197,617 52,514,599 The acco panying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 5 $ Total (Memorandum Only) 3,051,737 2,664,014 2,636,381 531,514 874,461 892,588 6,532,150 52,514,599 12 175 69,709,619 134,197,617 682,969 501,875 98,639 4,144,763 2,467,574 142,093,437 $ 211,803,056 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance All Governmental Fund Types Year Ended June 30, 1990 Governmental Fund T:x:11es Total Special Debt Capital (Me111orandum General Revenue Service Projects Onl:x:) Revenues Local Sources: Property taxes (Notes 3 and 12) $ 39,644,968 $ $ 12,016,064 $ $ 51,661,032 Tuition 358,192 22,317 380,509 Interest 297,123 46,648 96,443 81,102 521,316 Food sales 1,202,118 1,202,118 Food services and other 714,238 779,827 170,670 1,664,735 Magnet schools funding (Note 11) 5,886,880 103,922 5,990,802 Total local sources 41,014,521 7,937,790 12,216,429 251,772 61,420,512 State Sources: Minimum foundation progra111s (Note 8) 22,775,499 22,775,499 Desegregation settleaent (Note 8) 12,559,250 12,559,250 Magnet schools funding (Note 11) 5,886,883 5,886,883 Handicapped children aid 467,841 467,841 Vocational aid 1,167,117 1,167,117 Transportation aid 2,444,837 2,444,837 Other 429 841 623,276 1,053.117 Total state sources 39,844,385 6,510,159 46,354,544 Federal Sources: Elementary and Secondary Education Act 3,289,346 3,289,346 Vocational Education Act 443,476 443,476 Food service 3,194,146 3,194,146 Other 75 237 474 164 549 401 Total Federal sources 75 237 7,401,132 7 476 369 Total revenues $ 80,934.143 $ 21,849,081 $ 12,216,429 $ 251. 772 $ 115,251,425 (Continued) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 6 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance (Continued) Expenditures Instructional services: Basic programs Exceptional child progra  s Vocational-technical programs Adult continuing education progra  s Compensatory education programs Other instructional progras Total instructional services Instructional support services Pupil transportation services Operation and maintenance of plant School administration General ad  inistration (Note 12) Capital outlay (Note 4) Principal retirement of long-term debt (Note 5) Interest charges (Notes 5 and 12) Fiscal agent's fees Food services Co  unity services Magnet School expenses, net (Note 11) Indirect and other (Note 11) Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses) Contributed assets Proceeds of long-term debt (Note 5) Operating transfers in (Note 3) Operating transfers out (Note 3) Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other uses Fund equity (deficit) - beginning of period Fund equity - end of period (Notes 2 and 8) All Governmental Fund Types Year Ended June 30, 1990 $ 34,809,433 4,455,522 3,799,945 42,486 746,434 901,200 $ 44,755,020 7,775,548 4,399,206 9,452,136 4,924,052 4,694,728 3,907,957 612,656 3,535,925 5 986 84,063,214 (3 p 129,071) 49,659 3,097,928 6,312,392 (1. 741,591) 7,718,388 4,589,317 (4,062,515) 526,802 $ Govern  ental Fund Types Special Debt Revenue Service 7,641,657 537,986 825,325 713,277 2,485,660 288 63L 12,492,539 1,546,063 944,122 1,113,360 164,316 4,938,025 224,830 295,887 21,719,142 129,939 (152,522) (152,522) (22,583) 2,474,798 $ 4,841,016 3,015,537 61,937 7,918,490 4,297,939 1,894,113 (6 I 231. 290) (4,337,177) (39,238) 811,278 $ 2,452.215 s 772.040 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 7 $ Capital Projects 4,664,865 90 706 4,755,571 (4,503,799) 8,164,100 (81,102) 8,082,998 3,579,199 565,564 S 4,144,763 Total (l1e11orandu111 Only) $ 42,451,090 4,993,508 4,625,270 755,763 3,232,094 1,189,834 57,247,559 $ 9,321,611 4,399,206 10,396,258 4,924,052 5,808,088 8,737,138 4,841,016 3,015,537 61,937 4,938,025 837,486 3,535,925 392 579 118,456,417 (3,204,992) 49,659 11,262,028 8,206,505 (8,206,505) 11,311,687 8,106,695 (210,875) 7,895.820 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Cobined State ent of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual All Budgeted Govern ental Fund Types Year Ended June 30, 1990 General Fund S11ecial Revenue Funds Variance - Variance - Favorable Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Actual !Unfavorable) Revenues Local Sources: Property taxes (Notes 3 and 12) $ 39,832,151 $ 39,644,968 $ (187,183) $ $ $ Tuition 358,192 358,192 22,317 22,317 Interest 499,067 297,123 (201,944) 60,000 46,648 (13,352) Food sales 1,833,894 1,202,118 (631,776) Food services and other 834,861 714,238 (120,623) 589,768 779,827 190,059 Magnet schools (Note 11) 6,076,000 5,886,880 (189,120) Total local sources 41,166,079 41,014,521 (151. 558) 8,559,662 7,937,790 (621,872) State Sources: Mini  um foundation progra s (Note 8) 22,583,088 22,775,499 192.,411 Desegregation settle  ent (Note 8) 15,559,2.50 12.,559,2.50 (3,000,000) Magnet schools funding (Note 11) 6,076,000 5,886,883 (189,117) Handicapped children aid 562,064 467,841 (94,223) Vocational aid 1,357,960 1,167,117 (190,843) Transportation aid 2. ,472, 241 2,444,837 (27,404) Other 661,588 429,841 (231,747) 62.3,276 623. 2.76 Total state sources 43,196,191 39,844,385 (3. 351. 806) 6,076,000 6,510,159 434,159 Federal Sources: Ele  entary and Secondary Education Act 3,173,592 3,289,346 115,754 Vocational Education Act 448,681 443,476 (5,205) Food service 3,007,285 3,194,146 186,861 Other 645. 009 75 237 (569,772) 547,368 474 164 (73,204) Total Federal sources 645,009 75,237 {569, 772) 7,176,926 7,401,132 2.24, 206 Total revenues $ 85,007,279 $ 80,934,143 $(4,073,136) $ 21,812,588 $ 21. 849. 081 $ 36,493 (Continued) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 8 Expenditures Instructional services: Basic programs Exceptional child programs Vocational-technical programs Adult continuing education programs Compensatory education programs Other instructional programs Total instructional services Instructional support services Pupil transportation services Operations and maintenance of plant School administration General ad inistration (Note 12) Capital outlay (Note 4) Food service Community services Magnet schools expenses, net (Note 11) Indirect and other (Note 11) Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses) Contributed assets Proceeds of long-term debt (Note 5) Operating transfers in (Note 3) Operating transfers out (Note 3) Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expendi- THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual (Continued) All Budgeted Govern  ental Fund Types Year Ended June 30, 1990 Budget $ 36,681,093 4,648,156 3,823,070 736,140 746,390 957,012 47,591,861 7,995,787 4,296,288 10,044,238 4,859,204 4,924,345 2,190,337 1,115,090 1,570,520 1 647 647 86,235,317 (1,228,038) 223,517 223,517 General Fund $ 34,809,433 4,455,522 3,799,945 42,486 746,434 901,200 44,755,020 7,775,548 4,399,206 9,452,136 4,924,052 4,694,728 3,907,957 612,656 3,535,925 5 986 84,063,214 (3,129,071) 49,659 3,097,928 6,312,392 (1,741,591) 7,718,388 Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable) $1,871,660 192,634 23,125 693,654 (44) 55,812 2,836,841 220,239 (102,918) 592,102 (64,848) 229,617 (1,717,620) 502,434 (1,965,405) 1,641,661 2,172,103 (1,901,033) 49,659 3,097,928 6,088,875 (1,741.591) 7,494,871 tures and other financing uses $ (1,004,521) $ 4,589,317 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 9 Special Revenue Funds $ 7,998,198 675,249 747,725 35,426 2,623,215 __ .:,.27:....:,5,896 12,355,709 1,603,258 2,016,549 200,821 7,091,720 466,959 455,886 24,190,902 (2,378,314) $ (2,378,314) Actual $ 7,641,657 537,986 825,325 713,277 $ 2,485,660 288,634 12,492,539 1,546,063 944,122 1,113,360 164,316 4,938,025 224,830 295,887 21,719 I 142 129,939 (152,522) (152,522) (22,583) Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable ) $ 356,541 137,263 (77,600) (677,851) 137,555 (12,738) (136,830) 57,195 (944,122) 903,189 36,505 2,153,695 242,129 159,999 2,471,760 2,508,253 (152,522) (152,522) $ 2,355,731 (Continued) THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Coabined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual (Continued) All Budgeted Governmental Fund Types Year Ended June 30, 1990 Debt Service Fund Total (Memorandum Onlv) Var i ance - Variance - Favorable Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Revenues Local sources: Property taxes (Notes 3 and 12) $ 11,995,678 $ 12,016,064 $ 20,386 $ 51,827,829 $ 51,661,032 $ (166,797) Tuition 380,509 380,509 Interest 124,949 96,443 (28,506) 684,016 440,214 (243,802) Food sales 1,833,894 1,202,118 (631,776) Food services and other 1,424,629 1,494,065 69,436 Magnet schools and other (Note 11 ) 103,922 103,922 6,076,000 5,990,802 (85,198) Total local sources 12,120,627 12,216,429 95,802 61,846,368 61,168,740 (677,628) State Sources: Minimum foundation programs (Note 8) 22,583,088 22,775,499 192,411 Desegregation settlement (Note 8) 15,559,250 12,559,250 (3,000,000) Magnet schools funding (Note 11) 6,076,000 5,886,883 (189,117) Handicapped children aid 562,064 467,841 (94,223) Vocational aid 1,357,960 1,167,117 (190,843) Transportation aid 2,472,241 2,444,837 (27,404) Other 661,588 1,053,117 391,529 Total state sources 49,272,191 46 354 544 (2,917,647) Federal Sources: Elementary and Secondary Education Act 3,173,592 3,289,346 115,754 Vocational Education Act 448,681 443,476 (5,205) Food service 3,007,285 3,194,146 186,861 Other 1,192,377 549 401 (642 I 976) Total Federal sources 7,821,935 7 476 369 (345,566) Total revenues $ 12.120,627 $ 12,216,429 $ 95,802 $ 118,940,494 $ 114,999,653 $(3,940,841) (Continued) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 10 Expenditures Instructional services: Basic programs Exceptional child programs Vocational - technical programs Adult continuing education programs Compensatory education programs Other instructional programs Total instructional services Instructional support services Pupil transportation services Operations and maintenance of plant School administration General administration (Note 12) Capital outlay (Note 4) Principal retirement of long-term debt (Note 5) Interest charges (Note 12) Fiscal agents' fees Food service Community services Magnet School expenses, net (Note 11) Indirect and other (Note 11) Total expenditures Excess of revenues over expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses) Contributed assets Proceeds of long-term debt (Note 5) Operating transfers in (Note 3) Operating transfers out (Note 3) Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual (Continued) $ All Budgeted Governmental Fund Types Year Ended June 30, 1990 3,284,798 2,666,888 6,500 5,958,186 6,162,441 Debt Service Fund $ 4,841,016 3,015,537 61,937 7,918,490 4,297,939 1,894,113 (6,231,290) (4,337,177) Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable) $ (1, 556,218) (348,649) (55,437) (1,960,304) (1,864,502) 1,894,113 (6,231,290) (4,337,177) $ 6,162,441 $ (39,238) $(6,201,679) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 11 Total (Memorandum Only) $ 44,679,291 5,323,405 4,570,795 771,566 3,369,605 1,232,908 59,947,570 $ 9,599,045 4,296,288 10,044,238 4,859,204 6,940,894 2,391,158 3,284,798 2,666,888 6,500 7,091,720 1,582,049 1,570,520 2,103,533 116,384,405 2,556,089 223,517 223,517 2,779,606 $ 42,451,090 4,993,508 4,625,270 755,763 3,232,094 1. 189,834 $ 57,247,559 9,321,611 4,399,206 10,396,258 4,924,052 5,808,088 4,072,273 4,841,016 3,015,537 61,937 4,938,025 837,486 3,535,925 301 873 113,700,846 1,298,807 49,659 3,097,928 8,206,505 (8,125,403) 3,228,689 4,527,496 Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable) $ 2,228,201 329,897 (54,475) 15,803 137,511 43 074 2,700,011 277,434 (102,918) (352,020) (64,848) 1,132,806 (1,681,115) (1,556,218) (348,649) (55,437) 2,153,695 744,563 (1,965,405) 1,801 . 660 2,683,559 (1,257,282) 49,659 3,097,928 7,982,988 (8,125,403) 3,005.172 $1,747,890 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 1990 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies The accounting policies of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas {the School District) conform to generally accepted accounting principles applicable to governmental units, except for the practice of recording various co~ponents of its general fixed assets at appraised values rather than at cost {Note 1 {Fl). The following is a summary of the 111ore significant accounting policies. {A) Fund Accounting The accounts of the School District are organized on the basis of funds or groups of accounts, each of which is considered to be a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for by providing a separate set of self-balancing accounts which comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures. The following fund types and account groups are used by the School District: Governmental Fund Types: General Fund - The General Fund is the primary operating fund of the School District. All general tax revenues and other revenues that are not allocated by law or contractual agreement to another fund are accounted for in this fund. The general operating expenditures, the fixed charges, and the capital improvement costs that are not paid through other funds are paid from this fund. Special Revenue Funds - Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources, other than major capital projects, requiring separate accounting because of legal or regulatory provisions or administrative action. Debt Service Funds - Debt Service Funds are used to account for the accumulation of resources for the annual payments of principal, interest, and fees on long-term general obligation debt. Capital Projects Funds - Capital Projects Funds are used to account for financial resources segregated for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities. Fiduciary Fund Type: Agency Fund - The Agency Fund is used to account for the school activity groups and other agencies. The assets in this fund are held by the School District in a fiduciary capacity. 12 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies {Continued) Account Groups: General Fixed Asset Account Group - This account group is established to account for the fixed assets of the School District. General Long-Term Debt Account Group - This account group is established to account for the long-term debt that is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the School District. (B) Basis of Accounting The modified accrual basis of accounting is utilized by all funds. Revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become available and measurable. Expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which the liability is incurred, if measurable, except for unmatured interest on general long-term debt which is recognized when the interest is due. Resources from special grants are generally recognized as revenues to the extent of expenditures made under the provisions of the grants. Significant funds received before the revenue recognition criteria have been met are reported as deferred revenue. (C} Budgetary Accounting Certain revenues and expenditures are budgeted in accordance with various legal requirements which govern the School District's operations. The annual budget is submitted to the Arkansas State Department of Education for approval. Revisions by subsequent budget amendments, if any, are not submitted to the Department of Education. Budgeted revenues and expenditures, as revised and amended, were approved by the School Board at their March 20, 1990 meeting. No amendments were adopted subsequent to this date. The budgets formally approved by the Board of Directors include the General Fund {teacher salary, desegregation and other operating}, the Debt Service Fund, and certain construction and special revenue expenditures. The budgets of the School District utilized in its internal budgetary accounting systems and for financial reporting vary in some regards from those required by applicable state statutes to be formally approved by the Board of Directors. {D} Investments Investments are stated at cost, which approximates market value. Investments consist of certificates of deposit and repurchase agreements. 13 II Ii THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements {Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies {Continued) (E) Inventory Inventories are stated at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out) or market (net realizable value). Inventories are recorded as expenditures when transferred to schools and departmental offices for utilization. (F) General Fixed Assets In the general fixed asset group of accounts, land is valued at historical cost. Certain other components are stated at costs estimated by independent appraisers and by School District employees at various appraisal dates. Valuations of land improvements and buildings are intended to approximate fair market values at the latest appraisal dates (1965 and 1971, respectively)\nfurniture and fixtures are stated at appraisal values determined for insurance purposes in 1975. Additions since the date of the last appraisals are recorded at cost. The amount that such valuations vary from historical cost has not been determined. (G) Property Taxes Property taxes are recognized and recorded as current period revenues in accordance with the provisions of Interpretation 3 of the National Council of Governmental Accounting's (NCGA) Statement 1, which states that: ( 1l property tax revenues should be recognized when they become available\nand (2) available means when due and receivable within the current period and collected within the current period or expected to be collected soon enough thereafter (generally not to exceed sixty days) to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. (H) Accumulated Vacation and Sick Leave School District employees do not receive vacation pay per se. Certain employees contracted to work 240 days per year receive additional pay however, if they work more than 240 days in any particular year. These employees are paid upon termination for any unpaid days accumulated in this manner. Due to the small number of employees contracted for 240 days per year who have accumulated unpaid days in this manner, the School District's liability for this type of compensated absence is not considered material and, therefore, has not been recorded in the accompanying financial statements. 14 r I THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) (H) Accumulated Vacation and Sick Leave (Continued) School District employees are granted a specific number of sick leave days with pay. Certain employees are also granted a specific number of personal leave days with pay. Employees may accumulate a maximum of 175 sick days. Employees are not paid for accumulated sick pay upon termination and, accordingly, the School District has not recorded a liability for accumulated sick pay in the accompanying financial statements since the payment is not probable and the amount of any ultimate payment is not determinable. (I) Encumbrances Encumbrances for goods or purchased services are documented by purchase orders or contracts. Encumbrances outstanding at year end are not reported as expenditures, for financial statement purposes, as the related goods have not been received or the services performed. (J) Total Columns on Combined Statements Total columns on the combined statements are captioned \"memorandum only\" to indicate that they are presented only to facilitate financial analysis. Data in these columns does not present financial position, results of operations, or changes in fund equity in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Neither is such data comparable to a consolidation. (K) Tax Exempt Status The School District is a tax exempt organization, since its revenues are nontaxable under Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code. Note 2: Reconciliation of Fund Equity The School District issued unaudited financial statements (the \"State Report\") on August 28, 1990 to the Arkansas State Department of Education. These financial statements were prepared in accordance with accounting methods prescribed in Handbook II, as required by applicable state regulations. In that report, the \"Operating Fund\" is generally the equivalent of the General Fund for purposes of this report. The \"Federal Grants Fund\" corresponds to the Special Revenue Fund, except that it does not include activity in the \"Revolving Funds\" and the \"Food Service Fund.\" The \"Debt Service Fund\" and the \"Building Fund\" per the State Report correspond to the Debt Service Fund and Capital Projects Fund, respectively. Activity within the Operating and Debt Service Funds is presented in a combined format for presentation in the State Report. Balances and transactions related to the Agency Fund are reflected in the State Report as the \"Student Activity Fund.\" 15 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 2: Reconciliation of Fund Equity (Continued) The following is a reconciliation of fund equity as shown on the State Report and in the accompanying financial statements for the year ended June 30, 1990: Fund equity at June 30, 1990 per General Special Revenue State Report $ 119,571 143,575 Prior years' equity adjustments and other (225,653) 232,939 Net Handbook II audit adjustments (132,409) Adjust property taxes receivable (2,501,935) Record Revolving Funds and Food Service Fund equity 2,437,403 Record deferred revenue Reclassify debt service fund equity Record KLRE-FM/ KUAR-FM fund equity Fund transfer Fund equity per financial statements Due to school activity groups and other agencies per financial statements $ (376,514) 3,282,040 (14,812) 14 I 812 526,802 2,452,215 16 Debt Service 4,054,080 (3,282,040) 772,040 Capital Projects Agency 3,529,742 $ 848,745 799,083 (184,062) 4,144,763 25,716 $ 874,461 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued} June 30, 1990 Note 3: Property Taxes Pulaski County, Arkansas (the County} levies a property tax each February on the assessed value listed as of January 1 of the prior year for all real and personal property located in the County. Assessed values are established by the County Assessor's office. All taxes are due from property holders on an installment basis by October 10 and related amounts collected on behalf of the Little Rock School District are receivable from the County as collected. Taxes to be levied upon January 1, 1989 assessment values are as follows: Real Estate Personal property Utilities Valuation (Millions} $ 1,066 339 68 $ 1,473 Millage General Debt Fund Service 28.50 25.20 34.70 7.40 13.50 9.90 During 1985, a reassessment was completed for all property located in Pulaski County, Arkansas. Based upon the results of this reassessment, the assessed value of all property within the sphere of taxation by the School District at January 1, 1985 was approximately $944.1 million, as compared to $545.5 million at January 1, 1984. In addition, there was an overall reduction of millage under Amendment 59. The School District will be liable for its pro rata share of the cost incurred by the State of Arkansas in relation to the reassessment. It is understood that reimbursement of this cost to the State, totaling approximately $513,000, will be made over a five year period beginning in fiscal year 1987 through semi-annual withholdings from the School District's revenues. Property tax revenues are reflected net of such withholdings. Property tax revenues of the Debt Service Fund totaling approximately $6,200,000 (the excess of funds necessary to meet current debt service requirements} have been transferred to the General Fund during the year ended June 30, 1990 as provided for under the statutes of the State of Arkansas. 17 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 4: Fixed Assets The following is a summary of the major components of fixed assets of the School District as of June 30, 1990: Land Land improvements Buildings Furniture and equipment Totals Note 5: Long-Term Debt Balance June 30, 1989 $ 2,861,085 925,255 100,370,981 21,303,158 $ 125,460,479 Additions $ 4,664,865 4,072,273 $ 8,737,138 Balance June 30, 1990 $ 2,861,085 925,255 105,035,846 25,375,431 $ 134,197,617 A summary of long-term debt transactions of the School District for the year ended June 30, 1990, is as follows: Balance at July 1, 1989 New debt issued: Construction school bonds - Capital Projects Fund Present value of capital lease obligations related to purchases of equipment and buses - General Fund Total new debt issued Debt retired: School Bonds Capital lease obligations Revolving loan Pulaski County, Arkansas Special School District (Note 8) Total debt retired Balance at June 30, 1990 $ 46,093,587 8,164,100 3,097,928 11.262,028 1,990,000 1,556,218 60,000 1,234,798 4,841,016 $ 52,514,599 Long-term debt at June 30, 1990 is comprised of the following: School bonds, construction and refunding issues Pulaski County Special School District (Note 8) Principal Balance $ 35,986,850 11,070,666 18 Interest Rates Maturities Semiannually\n3.25% - 7.7% through 2008 Semiannually\n4.2% - 10% through 2003 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Ndte 5: Long-Term Debt (Continued) Principal Interest Balance Rates Arkansas State Department of Education Revolving Loan $ 240,000 9% Capital lease obligations, secured by related buses and computer equipment 5,217,083 6.6% - 8.5% $ 52,514,599 Maturities Semiannually\nthrough 1994 Annually\nthrough 1994 The annual requirements to amortize all long-term debt outstanding at June 30, 1990 are as follows: Year Ending June 30 Amount 1991 $ 5,212,004 1992 5,091,529 1993 4,712,969 1994 3,876,525 1995 3,822,217 Thereafter 29,799,355 Total Debt $ 52,514,599 The total interest payable in the future on debt outstanding at June 30, 1990 is approximately $22 million. In September 1990, approximately $17 million of second lien bonds were issued to finance future capital expenditures. Note 6: Prior-Year Defeasance of Debt In prior years, the School District defeased certain 1984 and 1985 construction bonds by placing the proceeds of new bonds in an irrevocable trust to provide for all future debt service payments on the old bonds. Accordingly, the trust account assets and the liability for the def eased bonds are not included in the School District's financial statements. At June 30, 1990, $3 million of bonds outstanding are considered defeased. 19 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 7: Retirement Plans All employees are required by law to be covered by the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System except the following: (1) bus drivers, cafeteria workers and janitors who are required by law to be covered by the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and (2) part-time teachers, teacher aides and foreign exchange teachers who may elect in writing to exclude themselves from coverage. Both systems are multiple-employer, cost-sharing public employee retirement systems (the Systems). The payroll for employees covered by the Systems, for the year ended June 30, 1990, was approximately $63,000,000\nthe School District's total payroll was approximately $71,800,000. For the year ended June 30, 1990, employees had the option to contribute 6.0% of full salary. Federal funds of the School District were used to provide the 12% matching contribution for all eligible employees who are paid through Federal programs, while the state provided the matching contribution for employees paid with state and local funds. For the year ended June 30, 1990, the School District's share of contributions and matching was approximately $2,100,000. The amount of unfunded prior service cost of the retirement plan and the excess of the actuarially computed value of vested benefits over the total of the retirement fund are not available for the School District as a separate entity. However, as of June 30, 1989, the date of its latest actuarial report, the Arkansas Teacher Retirement system had total unfunded prior service costs of approximately $360 million. Note 8: Desegregation and Related Funding Issues During 1982, the School District brought litigation to consolidate the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. This was an interdistrict school desegregation case involving complex federal litigation in both trial and appellate courts. In relation to the remedy issues of this litigation, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District entered into agreements, which were approved by the Courts, for the transfers of certain schools, buildings and related personal property between the districts. The Little Rock School District assumed approximately $14. 6 million in long-term debt (see Note 5) related to the properties transferred to them. The transfer of property also resulted in approximately $300 million in property assessment values being transferred to the Little Rock School District affective upon the January 1, 1987 assessments. 20 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 8: Desegregation and Related Funding Issues (Continued) The litigation also resulted in the courts ordering the School District to initiate certain desegregation programs with the Arkansas Department of Education (the State) being liable for certain aspects of funding the programs. All major financial aspects of this litigation have been settled and accepted by the courts. Under the terms of the settlement agreements, the Arkansas Department of Education agreed to pay the School district a total of $71 million, net of $2 million in legal fees awarded the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. This amount included approximately $57,130,000 for compensatory education and other desegregation programs and $13,870,000 for cash equivalent payments in lieu of formula guarantees. In addition, the State agreed to loan the District an amount up to $20 million. During the year ended June 30, 1990, the School District recorded settlement proceeds of $12,559,250 in the General fund for compensatory education programs and other desegregation expenses. Included in this amount is a receivable of $4,609,250 due the School District on July 1, 1990 for reimbursement of desegregation expenditures made prior to year end. In addition, the School District received and recorded additional payments from the State of $2,000,000 as cash equivalent payments in lieu of Minimum Foundation Program Aid (11FPA) formula guarantees which are recorded as 11FPA revenue in the general fund. As of June 30, 1990, no funds have been received in regard to the loan provisions of the agreement. Net amounts of future funding under the above described agreements (excluding potential loan proceeds) at June 30, 1990 are as follows: 11FPA Year Ending Desegregation Guarantees Total June 31, 1991 $ 8,356,778 $ 2,000,000 $ 10,356,778 June 31, 1992 8,637,482 2,000,000 10,637,482 June 31, 1993 8,926,606 2,000,000 10,926,606 June 31, 1994 8,094,112 2,000,000 10,094,112 June 31, 1995 6,042,591 2,000,000 8,042,591 Future years 4,513,067 1,870,114 6,383,181 Total $ 44,570,636 $ 11,870,114 $ 56,440,750 21 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 9: Agency Funds As the School District serves only in a fiduciary capacity for the school activity funds and other agency funds, related transactions are not reflected in the combined statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance. A summary of transactions in these school activity and other funds during the year ended June 30, 1990, and the resulting change in amounts due to the school activity groups and other agencies, is as follows: Due to school activity groups and other agencies at June 30, 1989 Transactions during the year ended June 30, 1990: School activities and other agencies revenues Interest on investments School activities and other agencies expenditures Due to school activity groups and other agencies at June 30, 1990 Note 10: Cash and Investments $ 867,835 3,308,366 28,447 (3,330,187) $ 874,461 Arkansas statutes authorize school districts to deposit their funds in any bank located in the State of Arkansas. In addition, they may invest in bonds of the United States of America, general obligation bonds of the State of Arkansas, and bank certificates of deposit or repurchase agreements from a bank or savings and loan that has pledged direct obligations of, or obligations which are fully guaranteed by, the United States of America. The carrying amount of the School District's deposits (including Agency Funds) with financial institutions was $1,022,431 and the bank balance was $2,080,069. The bank balance is categorized as follows: Amount insured by the FDIC Amount collateralized with securities held by the Federal Reserve Bank in the School District's name Uncollateralized Total bank balance $ 101,100 1,000,000 978,969 $ 2,080,069 Investments of the School District (including Agency Funds) at June 30, 1990, are summarized on the following page. Investments represented by specific identifiable investment securities are classified as to credit risk by the three categories described as follows: 22 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 10: Cash and Investments (Continued) Category 1 - Insured or registered, or securities held by the School District or its agent in the School District's name. Category 2 - Uninsured and unregistered, with securities held by the counterparty's trust department or agent in the School District's name. Category 3 - Uninsured and unregistered, with securities held by the counterparty, or by its trust department or agent, but not in the School District's name. Certificates of deposit $ Repurchase agreement $ Note 11: Magnet School Funding 1 150,000 150,000 Category _2_ $ - $ $ - $ 3 1,800,000 $ 8,715,000 10,515,000 $ Total Carrying Amount 1,950,000 8,715,000 10,665,000 As a part of its desegregation program (see Note 8), the Federal court directed the School District to participate in a \"Magnet School\" system and has vested control of these schools in a Magnet Review Committee (MRC). During the year ended June 30, 1988, six schools from the Little Rock School District were organized as a separate reporting group under the control of the MRC. The MRC received its authority from the Federal court as the result of desegregation litigation (see Note 8). The approved funding level of these schools ( \"the Magnets\") totals $3,100 per average daily membership (ADM) from the State of Arkansas, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD). The State pays $1,550 plus the \"table rate\" for each ADM from the respective school districts, with each school district paying the difference (\"contribution rate\") between $1,550 and their respective \"table rate\". Beginning in fiscal year 1990, the State paid its portion of the NLRSD and PCSSD contributions direct to the respective district's for subsequent remission to the LRSD. 23 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 11: Magnet School Funding (Continued) STATE LRSD NLRSD PCSSD Contribution rate $ 1,550 $ 1,550 $ 1,550 $ 1,550 Times Average ADM 3,756.61 2,400.02 422.79 933.80 Total 5,822,746 3,720,031 655,325 1,447,390 Additional contributions receivable 64,135 40 979 7 217 15,940 Total Magnet School Funding $5,886,881 $3,761,010 $662,542 $1,463,330 Total $11,645,492 128,271 $11,773 I 763 During the year ended June 30, 1990, expenses of the Magnet Fund exceeded total MRC contributions from the State and other districts. In order to maintain a balance between revenues and expense, additional contributions totaling $128,271 (as shown above) will be collected from the participants during the year ended June 30, 1991. Such amounts are recorded as due from other governments in the special revenue fund, except for the LRSD's portion, totaling $40,979, which was paid prior to year end. The Little Rock School District accounts for the Magnet School's operating revenues and expenses within its Special Revenue Funds since these funds are restricted to the operations of the Magnets. The School District's portion of the total costs ($3,761,010 as shown above) consist of $3,535,925 transferred from, and reflected as an expense of the General Fund, with the balance of $225,085 being indirect administrative cost contributions. In addition to the above discussed operating revenues, the School District is also reimbursed by the NLRSD and PCSSD for debt service payments for capital improvements to the Magnets. The total of such reimbursements (which are reflected in revenues of the Debt Service Fund) for the year ended June 30, 1990 are as follows: North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District Total 24 $ 29,422 74,500 $ 103,922 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1990 Note 12: Note Payable During the year ended June 30, 1990, the School District borrowed funds under various short term line-of-credit agreements to meet cash flow requirements. At June 30, 1990, the existing line-of-credit is due November 15, 1990, bearing interest at .5% over the Worthen bank prime rate, not to exceed 12% per annum. Collateral for the loan is all revenues of the School District. At June 30, 1990, the outstanding balance of $6,532,150 is reflected as a liability of the General Fund. Subsequent to June 30, 1990, the line-ofcredit agreement was increased to $15 million, and the due date extended to December 31, 1990. Total interest charges under the line-of-credit for the year 1990 were approximately $460,000. For financial statement charges are reflected in the General Fund as general expenditures. Note 13: Other Litigation and Contingencies ended June 30, purposes, such administration At June 30, 1990, the School District is a defendant in various legal actions. Several involve claims by former employees asserting discriminatory hiring practices. The School District intends to vigorously contest these cases. Management and legal counsel are of the opinion that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is small and, thus, no provision has been made in the financial statements for any potential liabilities. In addition, the School District's former attorneys have asserted a claim regarding services they performed on behalf of the District, although no litigation has been filed. Management and current legal counsel believe the prospect of the School District prevailing in this matter is substantial. Due to the uncertainties involved, no provision has been made for the related liabilities, however counsel has estimated the potential loss on the claim of up to $800,000 if an unfavorable judgment is rendered. During the year ended June 30, 1990, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) conducted an audit of the School District's method of reporting compensation to summer school teachers as contract labor. The IRS asserted that payments to these individuals were wages subject to payroll withholdings. An assessment of approximately $167,000 was paid by the School District subsequent to year end. The School may recover up to 100% of the assessment upon substantiation to the IRS that the payments to these individuals were properly reported as income. The School District intends to vigorously pursue such action. Expected unrecoverable amounts are not considered material to the financial statements, thus no accrual of a payroll tax liability based on the IRS determination has been recorded. 25 SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES 26 Schedule 1 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Co111bining Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures - Special Revenue Funds Year Ended June 30, 1990 Total Federal Food Other Magnet (Me11orandum Progra11s Service Progra111s Schools Only) Revenues Meal sales $ $ 1,202,118 $ $ $ 1,202,118 State, local and other assistance 22,317 492,809 910,294 11,773,763 13,199,183 Federal financial assistance 4,206,986 3,194,146 7,401,132 Interest inco111e 46 648 46 648 Total revenues 4,229,303 4,935,721 910,294 11,773,763 21,849,081 Ex2enditures Basic programs 38,644 7,603,013 7,641,657 Exceptional child progra11s 345,264 192,722 537,986 Vocational-technical progra11s 266,219 80,672 478,434 825,325 Adult continuing education programs 33,454 679,823 713,277 Compensatory education programs 2,475,282 10,378 2,485,660 Other instructional programs 7,230 22,799 258,605 288,634 Instructional support services 716,348 4,483 825,232 1,546,063 Operation and 11aintenance of plant 1,442 942,680 944,122 General administration 68,363 24,805 1,020,192 1,113,360 Capital outlay 20,069 68,970 75,277 164,316 Food services 4,938,025 4,938,025 Co111munity services 224,830 224,830 Indirect and other 70,802 225,085 295 887 Total expenditures 4,229,303 5,006,995 861,604 11,621,240 21,719,142 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (71,274) 48,690 152,523 129,939 Other Financing Uses Operating transfers out for Magnet School equip11ent lease payRtents (152 I 523) (152,523) Excess of revenues over (under) expend-itures and other financing uses $ $ (71,274) $ 48,690 $ 22,584 27 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Rockefeller Day Care Center Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures (Cash Basis) - Budget and Actual Year ended June 30, 1990 Revenues Federal funds Tuition Non-Federal matching contribution DCFS State contract LRSD (Development program and line item reimbursement) Total revenues Expenditures Salaries and fringe Program supplies General Non-Federal matching expenditures Total eXl)enditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Units Eligible Non-eligible Total Note: Budget 10-1-88 to 10-1-89 to $ $ 9-30-89 9-30-90 133,770 38,180 3,775 3,600 167,239 346,564 322,713 17,806 2,500 3 775 346,794 (230) 19,436 3,491 22,927 $ $ 133,770 41,780 3,525 167,239 346,314 322,763 17,806 2,450 3,525 346,544 (230) 14,376 3,179 17,555 Schedule 2 $ $ Actual 6-30-90 70,759 22,317 39,494 132,570 84,518 1,005 39,494 125,017 7,553 9,696 1. 723 11,419 The budget amounts as reflected above are by grant periods. The actual amounts, which reflect transactions during both of the budget periods, are based on the School District's fiscal year ending June 30. 28 Schedule 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Revenues of Teachers Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds (Basis of Accounting as Prescribed by Handbook II) Revenue - Local Sources Current taxes Delinquent taxes 40% pullback Excess treasurer's fee Depository interest Revenue in lieu of taxes Miscellaneous and rents Interest on investments Athletic receipts Revenue - County Sources County General Severance tax Revenue - State Sources MFPA Apportionment Vocational Handicapped children Orphan children Transportation Incentive fund Adult education Desegregation settlement Revenue - Other Sources Mineral lease Public law 874 Transfer from Federal grant Transfer from bond account Total revenues Year Ended June 30, 1990 Total General and Debt Service Funds (Memorandum Only) Budget $ 31,399,224 3,690,486 16,624,076 114,044 416,496 283,030 298,676 207,520 129,181 53,162,733 123,967 123,967 22,583,087 75,805 1,357,960 562,064 12,720 2,472,241 573,063 639,020 15,559,250 43,835,210 7 5,989 150,000 73 517 229,513 $ 97,351,423 29 Unadjusted Net Adjusted Handbook II Audit Handbook II Revenues $ 31,399,221 3,818,496 16,514,086 114,083 328,190 285,620 244,379 65,376 93 402 52,862,853 75,270 15 567 90 837 22,054,472 74,267 1,525,310 467,841 12,210 2,444,837 343,364 679,824 12,559,250 40,161,375 75,237 89,325 81,102 245,664 $ 93,360,729 Adjustments $ (24,748) (24 748) 1,894,113 1,894,113 $ 1,869,365 Revenues $ 31,399,221 3,818,496 16,514,086 114,083 328,190 285,620 244,379 65,376 93 402 52,862,853 75,270 15 567 90,837 22,029,724 74,267 1,525,310 467,841 12,210 2,444,837 343,364 679,824 12,559,250 40,136,627 75,237 89,325 1,975,215 2,139,777 $ 95,230,094 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule 4 Expenditures of Teachers Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds (Basis of Accounting as Prescribed by Handbook II) Year Ended June 30, 1990 Total General and Debt Service Funds (Memorandum Onll) Unadjusted Net Adjusted Handbook II Audit Handbook II Budget E,cpenditures Adjustments Ex:Qenditures Certified salaries $ 42,705,810 $ 43,196,383 $ $ 43,196,383 Non-certified salaries 12,593,914 12,319,992 12,319,992 Substitute salaries 1,479,154 1,424,809 1,424,809 Employee benefits 7,271,123 6,652,750 6,652,750 Purchased services 7,685,854 7,207,561 56,644 7,264,205 Supplies and materials 6,076,627 3,574,181 (29,561) 3,544,620 Capital outlay 4,599,420 2,875,669 48 I 811 2,924,480 Debt service 6,432,286 6,325,499 6,325,499 Other objects 3,349,315 4,507,893 1,925,880 6,433,773 Total expenditures $ 92,193,503 $ 88,084,737 $ 2,001, 774 $ 90,086,511 30 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule 5 Reconciliation of General and Debt Service Fund Balances - Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Handbook II Basis of Accounting June 30, 1990 Total adjusted beginning Handbook II fund balances Adjusted Handbook II Revenues (Schedule 3) Adjusted Handbook II Expenditures (Schedule 4) Adjustments to convert to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP): Property taxes - debt services Property taxes - general fund Special revenue fund adjustments Total general and debt service GAAP fund balances at June 30, 1990 General fund Debt service fund Total 31 $ (5,382,074) 95,230,094 (90,086,511) 4,054,080 (2,501,935) (14,812) $ 1,298,842 $ 526,802 772,040 $ 1,298,842 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Long-Term Debt June 30, 1990 Long-term debt at June 30, 1990 is comprised of the following: $4,485,000 December, 1965 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1995\ninterest at 3.25 to 3.6% $1,586,200 December, 1970 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1990\ninterest at 4.75 to 5.0% $2,051,000 June, 1973 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1993\ninterest at 4.7 to 5.0% $6,482,700 June, 1977 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1996\ninterest at 4.25 to 5.1% $6,134,565 March, 1979 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1999\ninterest at 5.4 to 6.0% $4,889,200 March, 1980 Surplus Revenue Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1994\ninterest at 5.75 to 6.0% $7,826,000 June, 1987 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 2007\ninterest at 6.7 to 7.7% $5,512,750 May, 1988 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 2007\ninterest at 6.2 to 7.2% $3,371,000 June, 1988 Refunding School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1999\ninterest at 5.6 to 6.6% $8,164,100 September, 1989 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 2008\ninterest at 6.1 to 6.75% Total bonds 32 Schedule 6 $ 1,400,000 124,000 580,000 3,200,000 3,885,000 2,305,000 7,701,000 5,512,750 3,115,000 8 z 164 I 100 35,986,850 (Continued) Schedule 6 (Continued) THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Long-Term Debt (Continued) June 30, 1990 Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through July 1990\ninterest at 7.2% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through March 1991\ninterest at 6.6% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through June 1991\ninterest at 7.0% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through July 1991\ninterest at 6.6% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through October 1991\ninterest at 8.38% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through October 1991, interest at 8.38% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through October 1992, interest at 7.0% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through April 1993\ninterest at 8.0% Installment purchase contract\npayable in monthly installments through July 1993\ninterest at 7.8% Installment purchase contract\npayable in semi-annual installments through July 1994\ninterest at 8.5% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through February 1993\ninterest at 5.9% Installment purchase contract\npayable in annual installments through April 1994\ninterest at 8.9% Total capital lease obligations $14,632,725 debt payable to the Pulaski County Special School District semi-annually through 2003 Revolving loan\npayable in semi-annual installments through January 1994 at 9% Total Long-Term Debt 33 121,624 154,629 40,164 732,333 262,019 37,977 43,773 65,594 151,170 749,101 2,803,572 55,127 5,217,083 11,070,666 240,000 ~ 52,514,599 OTHER REPORTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 34 % puzd anc/ !:11.u:vmad CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS o,.\n.o\nQllrce 20' E Marlcharn  Suite 500  l11Ue AOC'\u0026lt; AR 7220 R 1501) 375-,025  FAX (501) 375-8704 Texarkana Olflce. 701 Anca,..sas 81 a  Te.\u0026lt;arkana AA 7550~ (501) 773-2\"68  FAX (501) 77J 7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS (ACCOUNTING AND ADMINISTRATIVE) - BASED ON A STUDY AND EVALUATION MADE AS A PART OF AN AUDIT OF THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS AND THE ADDITIONAL TESTS REQUIRED BY THE SINGLE AUDIT ACT The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District), as of and for the year ended June 30, 1990, and have issued our report thereon dated November 16, 1990. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and Office of Management and Budget (0MB) Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and 0MB Circular A-128 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the combined financial statements are free of material misstatement . In planning and performing our audit of the combined financial statements of the School District for the year ended June 30, 1990, we considered its internal control structure in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our op1n1on on the combined financial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control structure. During the year ended June 30, 1990, the School District expended 88% of its total federal financial assistance under major federal financial assistance programs. As required by 0MB Circular A-128, our consideration of the internal control structure also included: 1) Tests of controls to evaluate the effectiveness of the design and operation of internal control structure policies and procedures that we considered relevant to preventing or detecting material noncompliance with specific requirements, general requirements, and requirements governing claims for advances and reimbursements and amounts claimed or used for matching that are applicable to each of the School District's major federal financial assistance programs, which are identified in the accompanying schedule of federal financial assistance. Our procedures were less in scope that would be necessary t o render an opinion on these internal control structure policies and procedures. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 35 Members Amencan lm\nt11u1e of Ceruf1eo Public Accoun1an1s P~rvate Companies Practice Sec11on and S E.C Practice Seel/on The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Two 2) Obtaining an understanding of (a) the design of internal control structure policies and procedures that we considered relevant to preventing or detecting material noncompliance with specific requirements, general requirements, and requirements governing claims for advances and reimbursements and amounts claimed or used for matching that are applicable to the School District's non-major federal financial assistance programs and (bl whether they have been placed in operation. The management of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of internal control structure policies and procedures. The objectives of an internal control structure are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and recorded properly to permit the preparation of combined financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that federal financial assistance programs are managed in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Because of inherent limitations in any internal control structure, errors or irregularities, or instances of noncompliance may nevertheless occur and not be detected . Also, projection of any evaluation of the structure to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation of policies and procedures may deteriorate. For the purpose of this report, we have classified the significant internal control structure policies and procedures in the following categories: 1. Accounting Controls Cash Revenues/receivables Cash receipts Expenditures/payables Cash disbursements - Fund balances - Payrolls - Fixed assets - Investments - Property taxes receivable 2. Controls Used in Administering Federal Programs General Requirements: Political Activity Davis-Bacon Act Civil Rights Cash Management Federal Financial Reports 36 Specific Requirements: Types of Services Eligibility Matching Level of Effort Reporting Cost Allocation Special Requirements The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Three For all of the internal control structure categories listed above, we obtained an understanding of the design of relevant policies and procedures and determined whether they have been placed in operation, and we assessed control risk. We noted certain matters involving the internal control structure and its operation that we consider to be reportable conditions under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Reportable conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control structure that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the entity's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the general-purpose financial statements or to administer federal financial assistance programs in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Fixed Assets At present, the School District does not have a complete inventory or detail subsidiary ledger of all fixed assets which can be agreed or reconciled to total general fixed assets as reported in the combined financial statements. The School District's fixed asset tracking system should be expanded to include all of its assets and to provide for a complete annual physical inventory count of capital assets . The inventory should be used to determine that all assets purchased are still in possession of the School District and that assets are being utilized in an effective and efficient manner. A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of the specific internal control structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that would be material in relation to the general-purpose financial statements being audited or that noncompliance with laws and regulations that would be material to a federal financial assistance program may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. Our consideration of the internal control structure would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control structure that might be reportable conditions and, accordingly, would not necessarily disclose all reportable conditions that are also considered to be material weaknesses as defined above. However, we believe the reportable condition described above is not a material weakness. 37 The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Four This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors, management, all applicable Federal and State agencies. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report which is a matter of public record. November 16, 1990 Little Rock, Arkansas Certified Public Accountants 38 XmaJ t:z?ld !://2c).,ma\nJ CERTI FIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS L.i:t:e Roel( Olfce 20' E Mar,\u0026lt;t-am  Su,te 500  L,!lle Rock. AA -:-2~ 1501) 375-2025  FAX ,so 375-8704 Texar,\u0026lt;ana Olf,ce. 701 Arkansas Blvd  Texarl\u0026lt;a\"la , AR 75502 (501) 773-~68  FAX (501) 774-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE BASED ON AN AUDIT OF THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District), as of and for the year ended, June 30, 1990, and have issued our report thereon dated November 16, 1990. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and 0MB Circular A-128 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. Compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas is the responsibility of the School District' management. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of the School District' compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants. However, our objective was not to provide an opinion on overall compliance with such provisions. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests indicate that, with respect to the items tested, The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas complied, in all material respects, with the provisions referred to in the preceding paragraph. With respect to items not tested, nothing ca  e to our attention that caused us to believe that the School District had not complied, in all material respects, with those provisions . This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors, management, and all applicable Federal and state agencies. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record . November 16, 1990 Little Rock, Arkansas ~\u0026lt;,~dAI Certified Public Accountants 39 MPmoers American 1ns111u1e of Certified Pubhc Accoun1an1s Private Ccmoan1es Practice Section ano S EC. Pac11ce Sec1,on Y~ //Uv.1 and !::bf uM CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS L. 1we Roel\u0026lt; 0 1ftce 201 E Ma,~!iam  Surte 500  L1111e Roci\u0026lt;. AR 12201 (501) 3i5-2025  FAX ,so) 375-8704 Texar\"ana O!hce. 701 Arkansas Siva  Tellarkana AR 75502 (501) 773-2168  FAX 1501) 774 7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO MAJOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have applied procedures to test The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas' (the School District) compliance with the following requirements applicable to each of its major federal financial assistance programs, which are identified in the schedule of federal financial assistance, for the year ended June 30, 1990: Political Activity Civil Rights Cash Management Federal Financial Reports Our procedures were limited to the applicable procedures described in the Office of Management and Budget's Compliance Supplement for Single Audits of State and Local Governments. Our procedures were substantially less in scope than an audit, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion on the School District's compliance with the requirements listed in the preceding paragraph. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. With respect to the items tested, the results of those procedures disclosed no material instances of noncompliance with the requirements listed in the first paragraph of this report. With respect to items not tested, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the School District had not complied, in all material respects, with those requirements. Also, the results of our procedures did not disclose any immaterial instances of noncompliance with those requirements. This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors, management, and all applicable Federal and state agencies. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record. November 16, 1990 Little Rock, Arkansas ~oAJ J., ~ ().,.., aa,J Certified Public Accountants 40 Memoers Amencan lns111u1e of Cerltfled Pubhc Accountants Pnva,e Comoanies Practice Secuon ano S.E C Pracuce Sec11on !:fbmaJ and 5:ao,mad CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS L11t1e Reck Ofl1ce 20' E Ma~tlam  Su11e 500  l,\"!le ROCi\u0026lt;. AA 722~1 ,so, 375-2025  FAX 1501) 375-8'04 Texarkana Olf1ce 701 Arkansas Blvd  Texarkana AA 75502 150') 773-2168  FAX (501) 7'J-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO MAJOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas' (the School District) compliance with the requirements governing types of services allowed or unallowed\neligibility\nmatching, level of effort, or earmarking\nreporting\nlevels of service\nannual assessment of educational needs\nservices provided to children enrolled in private schools\ncommitment of funds\nrecord retention\nclaims for advances and reimbursements\nand amounts claimed or used for matching that are applicable to each of its major federal financial assistance progra11s, which are identified in the accompanying schedule of federal financial assistance, for the year ended June 30, 1990. The management of the School District is responsible for compliance with those requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance with those requirements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and 0MB Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and 0MB Circular A-128 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the requirements referred to above occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the School District's compliance with those requirements. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. The results of our audit procedures did not disclose any instances of noncompliance with the requirements referred to above. 41 Memoers American lns111u1e of Cerufled Pubhc Accountants Prn,a1e Comoanies Prac11ce Sec11on and SEC Pracuce Section The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Two In our opinion, The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas complied, in all material respects, with the requirements governing types of services allowed or unallowed\neligibility\nmatching, level of effort, or earmarking\nreporting\nlevels of service\nannual assessment of educational needs\nservices provided to children enrolled in private schools\ncommitment of funds\nrecord retention\nclaims for advances and reimbursements\nand amounts claimed or used for matching that are applicable to each of its major federal financial assistance programs for the year ended June 30, 1990. November 16, 1990 Little Rock, Arkansas 42 ~{~~ Certified Public Accountants Y~ma: and' !://4:\n.m a..1 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS L11t1e RocK Oll1ce 201 E Markham  Sute 500  Lil!le Roc1' AR 7220\" 150:) 375-2025  FAX 1501) 375-870\u0026lt; Te,:arJ(ana Olf1ce 701 Arkansas Blvd  Texarkana.AR 75502 1501) 773-2168  FAX (501) 774-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO NONMAJOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TRANSACTIONS The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas In connection with our audit of the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District), as of and for the year ended June 30, 1990, and with our study and evaluation of the School District' internal control systems used to admini ster federal financial assistance programs, as required by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128, Audi ts of State and Local Governments, we selected certain transactions applicable to certain nonmajor federal financial assistance programs for the year ended June 30, 1990. As required by 0MB Circular A-128, we have performed auditing procedures to test compliance with the requirements governing types of services allowed or unallowed\neligibility and cost allocation that are applicable to those transactions. Our procedures were substantially less in scope than an audit, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion on the School District' compliance with these requirements. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. With respect to the items tested, the results of those procedures disclosed no material instances of noncompliance with the requirements listed in the preceding paragraph. With respect to i teJAs not tested, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas had not complied, in all material respects, with those requirements. Also, the results of our procedures did not disclose any immaterial instances of noncompliance with those requirements. This report is intended solely for the information of the Board of Directors, management, and all applicable Federal and state agencies. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record. November 16, 1990 Little Rock, Arkansas Certified Public Accountants 43 Members American lns11tute ol Certified Public Accounlants P\"vate Comoan1es Pracuce Section and S E C. Pracr,ce Section % mu a:?u/ :1/c\n,,/?uz.:t CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Little Reel\u0026lt; Office 20' E Mark:ham  Suite 500  Little Rocic AR 72201 1501) 3:5-2025  FAX 15011 375-8704 Texarkana Office 701 Arl(ansas Blvd  Texancana, AR 75502 (501) 773-2168  FAX (501) 774-72'4 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON SCHEDULE OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas for the year ended June 30, 1990, and have issued our report thereon dated November 16, 1990. These combined financial statements are the responsibility of management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these combined financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and 0MB Circular A-128 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an op1n1on on the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas taken as a whole. The accompanying Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the combined financial statements. The information in that schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the combined financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the combined financial statements taken as a whole. November 16, 1990 Little Rock, Arkansas ~4,il)\u0026lt;~a.A) Certified Public Accountants 44 Members American tns111u1e of Cerulied Pubhc Accountants Private Comoames Pact1ce Section and S.E C Prac11ce Secuon Federal Grantor/Pass-Through Grantor/Program Title U. S. Department of Education Passed Through State Department of Education: CHAPTER I Compensatory EESA TITLE II Title VI-B Handicapped Public Law 874 ECIA CHAPTER II CHAPTER I Handicapped Indochinese Refugee Child Assistance Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986 Vocational Education Act (Carl Perkins) Adult Basic Education Total U.S . Department of Education U.S. Department of Labor Passed Through State Department of Education: CETA/Vocational Job Training Partnership Act Total U.S. Department of Labor U.S . Department of Agriculture Passed Through State Department of Education: National School Lunch Program Nutritional Education Total U. S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed Through State Department of Human Services: Development Disabilities Planning Council Development Disabilities Planning Council Title XX Daycare Title XX New Futures Title XX Dropout THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance Year Ended June 30, 1990 Federal CFDA Number 84.010 84 . 164 84.027 84.041 84. 151 84.009 84.146 84 .184 84.048 84.002 17. 250 17 . 250 10.555 10.564 13.630 13 . 630 13.667 13.667 13.667 Total U.S . Department of Health and Human Services Total Federal Financial Assistance 45 $ Program or Award AIRount 2,491,902 57,067 526,637 319,199 72,461 7,394 121,366 448,585 35,427 55,552 154,278 11,932 45,405 36,070 178,360 31,056 2,100 Federal Funds $ Revenues Recognized 2,491,902 37,832 460,966 75,237 278,134 58,344 6,270 114,079 443,476 33 454 3,999,694 50,218 84 289 134 507 3,194,146 11 932 3,206,078 8,274 23,723 68,561 23, 762 2 100 126,420 $ 7,466,699 Expenditures $ 2,491,902 37,832 460,966 75,237 278,134 58,344 6,270 114,079 443,476 33 454 3,999,694 50,218 84 289 134,507 3,194,146 11 932 3,206,078 8,274 23,723 68,561 23,762 2 100 126,420 $ 7,466,699\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_999","title":"\"Election of Noncertified Staff for the 1990-91 School Year,\" Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990-06-28"],"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 employees"],"dcterms_title":["\"Election of Noncertified Staff for the 1990-91 School Year,\" Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/999"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["books"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition 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_805","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, joint brief for appellants","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":["1990-06"],"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","Education--Finance","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, joint brief for appellants"],"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/805"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_857","title":"Court filings, Court of Appeals, order; Court of Appeals, reply brief of appellant North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) to separate brief for appellee Arkansas State Board of Education","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":["1990-05-03","1990-05-30"],"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","School districts","Education--Finance","Magnet schools","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings, Court of Appeals, order; Court of Appeals, reply brief of appellant North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) to separate brief for appellee Arkansas State Board of Education"],"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/857"],"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\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":133,"next_page":134,"prev_page":132,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1584,"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}}]}}