{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_953","title":"Report: Annual report, North 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":["2006"],"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--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School enrollment","School facilities","Education--Finance","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Report: Annual report, North 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/953"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_787","title":"'Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the 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":["2006-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Student assistance programs","Literacy","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["'Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the 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/787"],"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\nCREP \\cmitrfar iaE^htcatuaudPaiiey Center for Research in Educational Policy Research Brief The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38t 52 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Reading Recovery in the Little Rock School District\\M^^ T0 ssS*^*^ WffWWIIIffltfiTglTrTWgl 1^ R CREP crater Jaf Ratarck ia EJueatiaaai Miey Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Research Brief Reading Recovery in the Little Rock School District fl fl January 2006  Anna W. Grehan Steven M. Ross Lynn Harrison Center for Research in Educational Policy fl John Nunnery Old Dominion University fl IRESEARCH BRIEF: READING RECOVERY IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Background Reading Recovery is an internationally used intervention program, designed by noted literacy expert Dr. Marie M. Clay. It is a short-term intervention program for first grade students who are struggling in learning to read. The goal of Reading Recovery is to provide early, effective interventions, through one-on-one tutoring, which not only empowers struggling readers and increases their chances of continued success, but also reduces the cost of these learners to educational systems. In 1995. the Little Rock School District (LRSD) began implementing Reading Recovery in two elementary schools. Over the years the LRSD has expanded the Reading Recovery program and developed a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to conduct training and provide professional assistance for Reading Recovery specialists. At the end of the 2004-2005 school year the LRSD had 28 trained Reading Recovery teachers who were serving 18 of the 34 elementary schools in the district. In February 2005. researchers from the Center for the Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at the University of Memphis presented an evaluation plan for the Reading Recovery program to principals, representatives of the LRSD and other stakeholders. The evaluation plan for Reading Recovery was presented as part of a larger district study in which Reading Recovery and three other programs were evaluated. The evaluation plan for Reading Recovery included: (1) analyses of Reading Recovery student achievement and program data. (2) principal, teacher, and parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. The evaluation plan was approved and researchers from CREP immediately began implementation. Purpose, Plan and Participants Purpose V The major goal of the study was to understand the impact Reading Recovery has had on African American students in the Little Rock School District. Specifically, through Reading Recovery, are African American students showing improvement in academic achievement? With that goal in mind, the primary research question for this evaluation was:  Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? In order to gain an even clearer picture of how well the Reading Recovery program has been used in the schools and the impact it has had on African-American students, six other questions were addressed. The information gathered to answer these questions provided a more complete understanding of how well the program has been carried out in the district. These additional questions were: I  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing in 2004-2005? . What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions? [NOTE: A 1 LI Reading Recovery student is discontinued when he/she demonstrates, through the appropriate assessments, ability to read on grade level with the regular class.]  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Plan To answer these questions a research plan that collected a variety of information from numerous sources was required. Researchers used scores from the following standardized achievement tests or in- class assessments: H  Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS)  Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)  Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)  An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement\nReading Recovery Subtests The CREP researchers also needed to determine how well the Reading Recovery teachers understood their tasks as teachers and how well they were able to follow the Reading Recovery program design. To answer these questions, data was collected data by using a Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire and a Reading Recovery observation tool. The questionnaire contained items for teachers to rate on an agreement-disagreement scale and open-ended items soliciting comments about the program. With the observation tool, trained Reading Recovery specialists monitored Reading Recovery teachers as they worked with students and recorded how well they followed Reading Recovery guidelines. CREP researchers interviewed, via telephone, four Reading Recovery teachers who were currently being trained to understand how effectively their training was being conducted. To determine how the program was thought of by principals, other teachers, and parents, questionnaires were specifically designed for each group. Classroom teachers from kindergarten through third grade in schools that had a Reading Recovery program were surveyed and asked both ratings items and open-ended questions. Parents with children currently in the Reading Recovery program were given a questionnaire to complete, also containing both types of items. Ten principals from Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a phone interview in which their comments were recorded and transcribed. All of the data from observations were collected in March through May of 2005. Copies of all the instruments used and a complete breakdown of all results can be found the technical report. Participants Students: The overall sample of students that was used in this research included 1,094 first graders in the schools with Reading Recovery programs (18 schools) for the school year 2004-2005. Of this larger sample, 230 students were referred to the Reading Recovery program and became the Reading Recovery Group and 864 students who were not in the Reading Recovery program became the Comparison Group. There were similar numbers of African-Americans in both groups, but students in the Reading Recovery group were more likely to be male, in a lower income bracket, and to receive special education services. 2 ' -Principals: Ten principals from Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a phone interview. The phone interview lasted approximately 45 minutes and responses to questions regarding the Reading Recovery program and its effectiveness were recorded and transcribed. Reading Recovery Teachers in-Training: Four randomly selected teachers currently being trained to become Reading Recovery specialists were interviewed through a 45-minute phone interview. These teachers provided insight into the current training efforts and professional development needs for new n teachers. Reading Recovery Teachers: There were 22 Reading Recovery Teachers who were surveyed through a specially designed questionnaire. In addition, 14 Reading Recovery Teachers were observed as they worked with their students. Classroom Teachers: Kindergarten through third grade teachers, working in schools with Reading Recovery programs, were also surveyed and 156 responded. Parents: Parents of students currently participating in a Reading Recovery program were sent a questionnaire and 95 were completed and returned. A survey in Spanish was sent when necessary, and 9 of those returned were completed in Spanish. n n Findings Researchers spent the summer and early fall compiling the information learned from the phone interviews, surveys, and observations. In late fall, achievement data and assessment records were obtained. Through careful analysis and with the use of statistical techniques, a thorough analysis of the Reading Recovery program was completed. The findings are best understood in context of the questions that were asked in the evaluation plan. Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? The impact of the Reading Recovery program on African-American students was comparable to students of other ethnicities. This impact, as it regards reading success, was more significant when students completed the entire program and were successfully discontinued. In addition, the benefits were more noticeable in areas of beginning reading skills that included basics such as hearing and recording sounds (Observation Survey) and phoneme segmentation (DIBELS), than in more advanced reading skills, such as text reading (DIBELS \u0026amp; DRA). However, there were no noticeable gains on statewide standardized tests (ITBS) for Reading Recovery students.  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005? Reading Recovery appeared to be well implemented and there was a high degree of consistency in the way the Reading Recovery teachers carried out the program. Classroom observations, conducted by outside experts in Reading Recovery, agreed that in the majority of areas, teachers were well prepared and were following the guidelines outlined by the Reading Recovery program. In addition, when looking at students achievement information, there was no difference between those students who had a more experienced teacher and those having a teacher with less experience. This outcome suggested that teachers were well trained and were using the Reading Recovery model appropriately.   What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Most of the students participating in Reading Recovery were African-American, which was expected given that African-American students were the majority in the 18 schools being studied. 3 g| What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued ? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions? There are three categories in which a Reading Recovery student may be placed at the end of the program year: (1) Discontinued: successful completion of the program\n(2) Incomptete^stilHn the program without having enough time to complete the program\nand (3) Recommended for Further Action: Reading Recovery teachers believe that the student is in need of some other instructional support to be successful. African American students in Reading Recovery were as likely as other ethnic groups to be placed in the Discontinued or Incomplete categories\nand were slightly more likely to be Recommended * . .. .  .  . ... I'l__I. . iL .. AO rvlor'orJ fhn for Further Action. African-American students were more likely than other ethnicities to be placed in the Low/Lower Middle reading group by their classroom teachers, after completing Reading Recovery. Reading Recovery is a program designed to be a daily intervention. However, about one-fourth 4 of sessions were missed due to either teacher or student absence or teacher or student being unavailable. So. on average, there were 3.5 sessions held per week, instead of 5. B V  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Reading Recovery teachers were extremely positive about the Reading Recovery program and were eager to see it continued. Teachers appeared to be very knowledgeable about the program- well- trained, prepared, and supported by their school and district. Reading Recovery teachers thought the program was having a positive impact on their students, including their African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers expressed a need for greater planning time and for more opportunities to continue to monitor their students after they completed the program. Teachers in-training were equally positive and committed to the Reading Recovery program. These teachers reported being well prepared by their training.  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Principals were very supportive of Reading Recovery and reported being actively involved in ensuring that it was carried out correctly. Most principals agreed that, through Reading Recovery, the achievement gap was being bridged for their African American students. Classroom teachers at Reading Recovery schools had a clear understanding of the Reading They praised the program and felt it had a very positive impact on student Recovery program, achievement.  What are the perceptions of parents/ guardians or Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents were generally very pleased with the Reading Recovery program and believed that the program was helping their child become a successful reader. Nearly all of the parents indicated a clear understanding of the program and appreciated the one-on-one attention their child was receiving. 4Compliance Remedy Questions Recommended Program Modifications Reading Recovery was extremely well received by parents, teachers and administrators and all reported a positive impact on those students who were in the program. It would be expected that higher achievement scores would also be detected\nyet this was not the case. However, given the focus of the program in improving reading performance, it might also be unrealistic to expect highly noticeable inrrM-sPs on norm-referenced multiole-choice standardized tests. Possible program modifications increases on norm-referenced multiple-choice standardized tests. needed to produce greater achievement gains are:  An expanded program that would include more Reading Recovery teachers. With more teachers, there could be greater monitoring of students after they discontinue the program to ensure that their momentum is maintained. There are many students in need of Reading Recovery in the Little Rock School District and Reading Recovery teachers may be pressed to discontinue one qroup of students in order to begin assisting another group. The necessary follow-up contact can not occur, and therefore the slippage in achievement that has been noted in the program in other states and districts may be found among students in the Little Rock School District. With an expanded program, these students could be more closely monitored and their gains could be maintained. In addition to an expanded program, a transitional plan for students who have discontinued  in aaoiiion lo an expanueu progiam, ci uciieiuuiiai ------------  ---------------  should be explored. Such a plan could involve daily monitored reading that would provide n another buffer against slippage.  Increased professional development of classroom teachers would enable them to understand how to integrate their Reading Recovery students back into the classroom once they have been discontinued, and how to provide the appropriate instruction and feedback so that students would continue to improve.  Increased partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to help with the development of transitional plan and professional development for classroom teachers. n  Many of the principals, as well as Reading Recovery teachers, cited examples of profound student achievement and continued noteworthy success of former Reading Recovery African- American students. Although evidence of these success stories were not detected by analyzing standardized test scores as a whole, some African-American students are reported to be experiencing continued, sustained high levels of achievement. Future studies might provide a more in-depth analysis of a small number of students whose gains were maintained to determine what factors contributed to their successes and how these factors can be generalized to the Hi I  population as a whole. Expectations of Program Modifications Reading Recovery has valuable components that, with adaptation and modification, can be even more effective. With program modifications, the Little Rock School District could expect:  Progressive gains on standardized test scores over time.  An increased number of students involved in the Reading Recovery program.  A greater adherence to Reading Recovery guidelines, especially those relating to the number of sessions required for optimum benefits. 5  More teachers throughout the district better able to serve students at-risk in the areas of literacy and reading.  Sustained achievement of students upon completion of the Reading Recovery program. A stronger relationship with UALR professionals that would continue to provide the Little Rock School District with the most up-to-date research findings and best practices for reading and literacy instruction. a I 6 e I i-\n *CREP ' CenUrf^r Httevek ui Educational ^oEcy Center for Research in Educational Policy The Univetsity of Memphis 325 Browning Hal Memphis. Tennessee 38152 Tol Free 1-866-670-6147 Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District TECHNICAL REPORT 9 A n nn H CREP xca/er ieutrci itt Educational policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, T ennessee 38152 Toll Free 1-866^70-6147 Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District ai TECHNICAL REPORT 91 January 2006 -r ,1.\n Anna W. Grehan Steven M. Ross Lynn Harrison Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery Old Dominion UniversityEXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION ^1 The Little Rock School District began implementing Reading Recovery during the 1995-1996 school year in two schools. During the first four years of implementation, the Little Rock School District was part of the Pulaski County Reading Recovery Site. By 1998 there were eight trained Reading Recovery teachers in seven schools in the Little Rock School District. In July 1999 the district became a Reading Recovery Site hiring a full-time teacher leader. In 2000-2001 the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) began conducting the Reading Recovery teacher training for the district. Between the 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 school years UALR trained 17 Reading Recovery teachers for the district. At the end of the 2004-2005 school year the Little Rock School District had 28 trained Reading Recovery teachers serving 18 of the 34 elementary schools in the district. Reading Recovery is one of eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by Little Rock schools. Currently, Little Rock School District funds are used to support the program. The goal of Reading Recovery is to dramatically reduce the number of first grade students who have difficulty learning to read and write and to reduce the cost of these learners to educational systems. Reading Recovery is a short-term intervention program of one-to-one tutoring for the lowest-achieving first graders. The intervention is most effective when it is available to all students who need it and is used as a supplement to good classroom teaching. Individual students receive a half-hour lesson each school day for 12 to 20 weeks with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher. As soon as students can read within the average range of their class and demonstrate that they can continue to achieve, their lessons are discontinued and new students begin individual instruction. The evaluation plan for the Reading Recovery program in Little Rock School District included: (1) analyses of Reading Recovery student achievement and program data, (2) principal, teacher, and parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. This report is part of a larger district study of four programs evaluating the effectiveness in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students. This report includes results from 18 elementary schools participating in the Reading Recovery program. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The major goals of this research study were to evaluate African-American student achievement outcomes, program implementation fidelity, and principal, teacher, and parent perceptions concerning the Reading Recovery tutoring program for first grade students. Student achievement results on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement were analyzed to compare the progress of first graders enrolled in the Reading Recovery intervention program and comparison students in 2004-2005. Program implementation ratings were obtained from observations of 14 tutoring sessions in nine schools. The survey and interview results are based on the perceptions of 156 classroom teachers in grades K-3, 22 experienced Reading Recovery teachers, four teachers in-training, 10 principals, and 95 parents. The Reading Recovery evaluation was structured around the following seven primary and supplemental research questions. Primary evaluation question:  Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? 1n Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) evaluation questions: E  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005?  What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued?  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first-grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? DESIGN 4 The evaluation period extended from February 2005 through May 2005. The evaluation design was based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from Reading Recovery intervention observations, principal and teacher in-training interviews, classroom teachers, Reading Recovery teachers, parent surveys, and Reading Recovery program data. Reading Recovery student-level achievement data on the ITBS, DRA, DIBELS, and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement was received in fall 2005 and incorporated in this report. The primary data collectors in this study were Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) trained site researchers. Site researchers: (1) conducted Reading Recovery intervention observations, (2) administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey, (3) conducted principal and teacher in-training interviews, and (4) collected program data. Principals at Reading Recovery schools were responsible for administering the classroom teacher and Reading Recovery parent surveys. Participants Little Rock School District is located in Central Arkansas and serves approximately 26,500 students, with African-Americans representing approximately 67% of the district student population, in 49 schools in an urban area with a population of 184,000. In the 2004-2005 school year 18 w elementary schools and 230 first grade students, of which 173 are African-American, 27 are Caucasian, 22 are Hispanic, and the remaining 8 are other ethnicities, participated in the Reading Recovery program in the district. Three schools were in their first year of program implementation (Bale, Stephens, and Terry) and survey and observation data were not collected from these schools. However, randomly selected teachers in-training and principals from these three schools were interviewed for this study. INSTRUMENTATION Six instruments were developed by CREP to collect the evaluation data: a classroom observation tool, a principal interview, a teacher in-training interview, a Reading Recovery teacher questionnaire, a classroom teacher questionnaire, and a parent survey. 2 Program Data Reading Recovery program information was obtained from data submitted to the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University in 2004-2005. Each year the schools and district submit program data and receive a site report. The report represents an examination of Reading Recovery student outcomes for Little Rock and accounts for all children served by Reading Recovery within the site during the 2004-2005 school year. In addition, attention is given to implementation factors that may be supporting or hindering the success of the intervention at the site. Student Achievement Results In addition to the program data, interviews, survey, and observation tools cited above, reading achievement data are derived from scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement. PROCEDURE Data for the evaluation were collected March-May for the 2004-2005 school year. On February 16, 2005 principals were given an overview of the evaluation and timelines for collecting data. On March 3-4 and April 14-15, 14 tutoring observations were conducted in nine randomly 91 selected experienced Reading Recovery schools by two Reading Recovery content experts from Georgia State and The Ohio State Universities. Only experienced Reading Recovery teachers were observed. On March 23 a CREP trained site researcher administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey to experienced teachers at a regularly scheduled monthly meeting at UALR. In April and May principals in experienced Reading Recovery schools administered the classroom teacher questionnaire to K-3 grade teachers. Principals also administered the parent survey to parents whose children were currently receiving first grade intervention services in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools. Four teachers in-training and 10 principals were randomly selected from the 18 Reading Recovery schools to participate in a phone interview in April and May conducted by CREP researchers. Reading Recovery program data were received in summer 2005 from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University. Student achievement data were received from the district in fall 2005. METHODS - STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Sample. The sample included 1,094 first grade students who attended one of 18 schools that implemented the Reading Recovery program during the 2004-2005 school year. Of these, 230 were referred to the Reading Recovery program, and 864 were in the comparison group. The percentages of students who were African-American or of Limited English Proficiency were similar between the comparison and Reading Recovery groups (73.6% versus 75.6% and 7.3% versus 8.7%, respectively). However, Reading Recovery students were more likely to be eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (84.3% versus 73.1%), to receive special education services (15.7% versus 8.6%), and to be male (58.1 % versus 48.0%). Reading Recovery Treatment Level. In the Reading Recovery program, students who are deemed to have attained a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned an end-of-program status of discontinued. Children who received 20 or more weeks of Reading Recovery services, but who do not attain a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned a status of recommended action. Children who have received fewer than 20 weeks were assigned incomplete program status. Children designated as unknown status were removed from the program in fewer than 20 weeks due to reasons other than the school year ending. Other children were designated as having moved during the school year. The median number of sessions of recommended action (Md = 68.50\nn = 68) children was actually higher than the median for discontinued students (Md = 57.00\nn 3 = 90). The medians for incximplete students {n = 46) and unknown\" students (n = 12) were very similar (Md = 44.63 versus 46.08, respectively). For the purposes of this study, recommended action and discontinued students were categorized as complete program\n incomplete and 158 with a unknown students were categorized as incomplete program\n and students who moved were eliminated from the analyses. This left a total of 216 Reading Recovery students\n133 ...3.  4 4 complete program, and 58 with an incomplete program. Measures. Pretest (covariate) measures included: (a) Spring, 2004 Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores, (b) fall 2005 Observation Survey: Reading Recovery program subtests that included Letter Identification, Word Test, Concepts About Print, Writing Vocabulary, Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words, and Text Reading, and (c) the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) subtests in Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Word Use Fluency. Outcome measures included Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading Normal Curve Equivalent Scores, DRA subtests. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests administered in Spring 2005. To achieve some parsimony in the analyses, pretest measures were subjected to a principal components analysis, and regressionbased factors scores were constructed for pretest DRA, Observation Survey\nReading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests. A single factor accounted for 60.1% and 60.5% of the variance in the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests, respectively. Outcome measures included the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, DIBELS subtests, and ITBS Reading. Student achievement analyses. A 3 (Program Status) by 2 (African-American versus other) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed on two test batteries, using student gender, the pertinent pretest factor score, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status as covariates. One test battery included the DRA and subscales of the Observation Survey: Reading Recovery. The second test battery included subtests from the DIBELS. A similar 3 by 2 analysis of covariance was performed on ITBS Reading NCE scores using the 2003-2004 DRA score as a pretest covariate. For the multivariate analyses, Wilks lambda was used as the criterion of multivariate significance. Where Wilks lambda indicated a significant multivariate effect, follow-up univariate analyses were performed on each outcome variable using the Bonferroni procedure to control for experimentwise alpha. When significant univariate results were found, post hoc analyses were performed using Scheffes procedure. Effect size estimates were computed for all posttests by subtracting the adjusted mean for the comparison group from the adjusted mean from the Reading Recovery group within levels of race, then dividing by the total standard deviation of the posttest (Cohen, 1988\nHedges \u0026amp; Olkin, 1985). For ITBS Reading NCE effect size estimates, the population standard deviation of 21.06 was used. The effect size estimate (ES) represent the standardized difference between treatment and comparison group means, which allows for comparison across measures that have different metrics. Exploratory and supplementary analyses. Impact of teacher experience and number of sessions. The number of years experience with Reading Recovery was recorded for each teacher. Years experience ranged from 1 to 10 years. ITBS Reading NCE scores and DRA test scores for 2004-2005 were regressed on 2003-2004 DRA/RR Observation Survey factor scores and dummy- coded variables representing student ethnicity, free lunch status, gender, special education status, and LEP status. Standardized residuals were saved from each of these analyses, and plotted against teacher years of experience to graphically assess the nature of the relationship between teacher experience and teacher effectiveness in Reading Recovery for students who received a Complete program. Standardized residuals for each of these 2004-2005 tests were also plotted against number of Reading Recovery sessions received for all students (i.e., those who received either a Complete or Incomplete program). 4 r.iRESULTS Classroom Observation Results Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAI) As indicated in the description of the RRIAI, the observation procedure primarily focuses on Reading Recovery Program Components and Program Strategies. The site observers used a four-point rubric (1 = poor or unacceptable, 2 = below average in comparison to other programs observed, 3 = meets nearly all standards of program quality, and 4 = above average in comparison to other programs) to rate the frequency and application of components and strategies of Reading Recovery instruction. m Reading Recovery Program Components The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Components was 3.46 which suggests a high level of program implementation. Of the six subcategories the highest observed ratings were: assembling a cut-up story and introducing and reading a new book observed to be above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The program component subcategory with the lowest observed rating was working with letters and/or words using magnetic letters observed to be above average in only 35.7% of tutoring sessions. The six program components were observed in at least 92.9% of 14 tutoring sessions. m Reading Recovery Program Strategies The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Strategies was 3.61 which also indicates a high level of instructional effectiveness. Of the eight During Tutoring Lesson subcategories, the highest observed rating was for appropriate text selected throughout the lesson observed to be above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The During Tutoring Lesson subcategory with the lowest observed rating was echo of focus throughout the lesson observed to be above average in just 42.9% of tutoring sessions. For the After Tutoring Lesson, has high expectations for the child and articulates child's strengths and needs were observed to be above average in 78.6% of tutoring sessions and accurate and up-to-date records were observed to be above average in 71.4% of tutoring sessions. The Reading Recovery Program Strategies were observed in at least 85.7% of tutoring sessions. Observer Perceptions of Reading Recovery Program Implementation Site observers reported being impressed with the dedication and commitment of the Reading Recovery teachers to the fidelity of the teaching procedures and the integrity of the implementation of the program. Almost all teachers observed were meeting all the standards, guidelines, and expectations of the Reading Recovery Council of North America and the North American Trainers Group. Since observations occurred in March and April, most of the students observed were second-round students, since teachers had discontinued their first-round students. Teachers reported that students who did not discontinue from Reading Recovery during the first-round were being considered for further intervention services. Site observers also reported that the Reading Recovery program in the Little Rock district receives an adequate allocation of time, materials, and other resources. However, several teachers and principals expressed the need for additional Reading Recovery teachers in their schools. Reading Recovery teachers also reported teaching literacy small groups the rest of the day, which enables them to give their Reading Recovery students more attention during the instructional day. By teaching these literacy groups, site observers suggested that the Reading Recovery 5 teachers expertise and knowledge gained from their training and practice benefits children across several grade levels. During visits site observers suggested areas in which some Reading Recovery teachers needed improvement. These instructional areas included: (1) hearing and recording sounds in words\n(2) making and breaking\n(3) doing away with the helping hand\nand (4) maintaining up-to-date records on each child as a basis for instruction. INTERVIEW RESULTS Reading Recovery Principal Interview 4 Principals at 10 of the Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a 45-minute phone interview. Principals were asked a series of questions regarding general program implementation, classroom-level changes, program results, professional development opportunities and parental and community involvement. 81 Overall, principals were positive about the Reading Recovery program and the impact it has had on their schools. Most of the schools have been utilizing Reading Recovery for several years and faculty and staff are very comfortable with the program. Nearly all of the principals interviewed were instrumental in bringing Reading Recovery to their schools, and the decision to utilize Reading Recovery was made after considerable research and thoughtful consideration. Principals reported that Reading Recovery is a wonderful complement to the schools balanced literacy programs. The one-on-one attention the reading Recovery students receive is overwhelmingly the most effective of the strategies that the program employs. Other effective strategies mentioned included push-ins, literacy groups, running records, and the writing component. Principals reported being active advocates in their Reading Recovery programs. They described their roles as one of support and involvement, ranging from oversight of the program to more direct involvement including student selection for the program, review of student progress, and ongoing meetings and collaboration with the Reading Recovery specialists. 4  All principals noted that teachers were very supportive of the Reading Recovery program and appreciated the impact it has had on overall student achievement. Most of the resources needed for effective program implementation are available\nhowever, principals reported an ongoing need for books, additional teachers and tutors, and more planning time. Principals described the African- American population as being well-served by Reading Recovery, and most agreed that through Reading Recovery the achievement gap is being bridged for their African-American students. In most of the schools, African-American students are a large percentage of the Reading Recovery program, and the early intervention provided by Reading Recovery allows the student to be encouraged by being successful at a younger age. Teacher In-Training Interview q  In the spring 2005, four teachers in their first year in the Reading Recovery program were contacted by phone for a 30 to 45-minute phone interview. The teachers in-training were attending classes concerning Reading Recovery instruction, as well as working in their schools implementing the Reading Recovery strategies. Feedback from the teachers was solicited regarding general program information, classroom level changes, results, professional development, and parental involvement and support. All teachers described the process of integrating Reading Recovery into the schools literacy program as well planned and organized. Reading Recovery teachers work individually with the lowest performing students and then follow up individual instruction with literacy groups. Reading Recovery 6^1 teachers reported a thorough selection process that involved collaboration with the classroom teacher and comprehensive testing and assessment. In general, the Reading Recovery teachers reported strong support from the classroom teachers, that classroom teachers appreciated the effectiveness of the one-on-one approach, and the fact that Reading Recovery is able to provide this type of support, freeing the classroom teacher to work more effectively with the other students. The Reading Recovery teachers in-training strongly felt that Reading Recovery helped to equalize learning and achievement opportunities for African-American students at their schools. Most of the students in Reading Recovery are African-American, and these teachers were able to see positive gains. Reading Recovery helps all struggling readers by actively engaging them in reading and allowing them to feel successful at reading. The Reading Recovery teachers in-training reported a significant increase in self-confidence and improvement in overall attitude among the Reading Recovery students. As the students begin to experience success, they are less frustrated and angry. This improvement in attitude improves their classroom behavior and relationships with other teachers and students. Some of these teachers have seen dramatic increases in test scores and other achievement data, while others have not yet been able to see these gains. Reading Recovery teachers in-training reported professional training that ranged from adequate to thorough. Changes in Reading Recovery course instructors led to some confusion for some of the teachers in training, and some reported the need for increased classroom hours. However, overall, these teachers reported feeling well-prepared to work with the students. The strategies they have learned have been very helpful. Although the teachers in-training reported having significant classroom experience, they are learning unique techniques that have been very beneficial. Survey Results 4 Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) Descriptive results. Reading Recovery teachers had extremely favorable attitudes toward the program at their schools. All of the teachers strongly agreed or agreed that they have a thorough understanding of the program, teachers in their school are generally supportive of the program, ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers, Reading Recovery monthly meetings are effective and useful, instructional materials needed to implement the Reading Recovery program are readily available, and the Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. There was also strong agreement that Reading Recovery teachers received support, with 86.4% of the teachers reporting that the school administration and Reading Coach supported their efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher. Almost 75% (72.7%) of teachers reported receiving extensive district support. The items with the highest level of disagreement (disagree and strongly disagree) concerned Reading Recovery teachers having sufficient planning time (36.4%) and enough tutors to fully implement the Reading Recovery program (18.2%). Demographic data. All Reading Recovery teachers (100%) reported having at least six years of teaching experience and 31.8% reported at least six years experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. Approximately 85% (86.4%) of Reading Recovery teachers reported having a Masters Degree and beyond. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers were Caucasian (72.7%) and 13.6% reported their ethnicity as African-American. H Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) Descriptive results. For the classroom teachers, the three items on which 80% or higher agreed included: teacher support of the program (93.6%), positive impact on student achievement 1(87.8%), and improving achievement of African-American students (82.1%). The two items on which classroom teachers expressed the strongest disagreement or disagreement included: sufficient faculty and staff to fully implement the program (23.1%) and because of Reading Recovery, parents are more involved in the literacy program (14.7%). Demographic data. K-3 classroom teachers reported less teaching experience and education attainment than Reading Recovery teachers. Close to 30% (28.9%) reported less than one year to five years teaching experience in any school and 57.7% reported having a Bachelors degree. However, more classroom teachers reported their ethnicity as African-American (28.9%) than Reading Recovery teachers with the majority (68.6%) reporting ethnicity as Caucasian. Reading Recovery Parent Survey (RRPS) 4 Descriptive results. 4 Descriptive results. Generally, parents had favorable attitudes toward the Reading Recovery program. A majority of the parents (90.5%) reported that, because of Reading Recovery tutoring, they believed that their child would be successful in school and 86.3% reported that Reading Recovery had improved their child's reading skills. However, less than 75% (66.3%) of parents strongly agreed or agreed that they have many opportunities to talk with the Reading Recovery teacher about their childs progress. Demographic data. Almost 70% (68.4%) of parents reported the ethnicity of their child as African-American and 13.7% reported their childs ethnicity as Hispanic and 7.4% reported the ethnicity of their child as Caucasian. m Reading Recovery Level of Participation and Program Measures African-American students were in the majority in all of the 18 schools in the study. Not surprisingly, at 72.5% of the comparison student population and 75.0% of the Reading Recovery student population, African-American students were also a majority of the Reading Recovery students in this study. In 10 of the 18 schools, the percentage of African-American students in Reading Recovery exceeded their percentage of the comparison population. How meaningful this difference is may be debatable given instances where 100% of the Reading Recovery students are African-American in a school in which 98.3% of the comparison students are African-American (Watson Elementary) or where there are just 8 Reading Recovery students in a school with more than 100 first grade students (Terry Elementary School). Reading Recovery End of Program Status by Race A comparison of the total African-American Reading Recovery student population to the total other students involved in Reading Recovery indicates that the students were nearly equally represented in two of the three program specific measures. The percentage of African-American students Discontinued (43.3%) was not considerably different from the percent of other students Discontinued (46.3%). In addition, in the Incomplete status, the percentage of African-American students (21.3%) was not very much different than that of the other students (25.9%). Only in the Recommended status did the percentage of African-American students considerably exceed the percentage of other students (34.5% vs. 27.8%). fl Reading Recovery Year End Reading Group by Race With-in school comparisons are again difficult to make due to the unequal number of African- American students compared to other students participating in the program. On an overall basis however, the percentage of African-American students in the high/upper-middle group at 25.7% was 8 I fl fl fl fl lower than the percent of other students in this group (38.2%). In addition, almost 75% of the African-American students were in the low/lower-middle group compared to less than 66% of other students. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery Subtests. A total of 142 Reading Recovery students (66% pretest-posttest match rate) and 562 comparison students (65% rate) had matching 2005 DRA subtest scores, demographic information, and 2004 DRA/Observation Survey factor scores. Wilks lambda indicated significant multivariate effects for Reading Recovery status (Fa 1380 = 6.83, p \u0026lt; .001), special education status ( Ft.ego = 3.93, p \u0026lt;.01), and 2003-2004 DRA/Observation Survey factor scores (F4 ego = 111.32, p \u0026lt;.001). Follow-up univariate tests indicated significant Reading Recovery status effects on Hearing and Recording Sounds (^2,093 = 6.34. p \u0026lt;.01) and DRA scores (F2,693 = 9.99, p \u0026lt; 001). Post hoc analyses revealed that: (a) Reading Recovery students in both the Incomplete Program = 36.32\nS =+0.43) and the Complete Program (M = 35.96\nES =+0.37) had a significantly higher adjusted mean Hearing and Recording Sounds score than students in the comparison condition (Ivf = 33.82)\nand (b) students in the comparison condition //Vf = 17.64) and the Complete program 16.42\nES = -0.18) had a higher mean DRA score than students receiving the Incomplete Program (M = 13.02\nES = -0.68). No program by race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African-American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. DIBELS Subtests. A total of 67 Reading Recovery students (31%) and 53 comparison students (28%) had matching 2005 DIBELS subtest scores, demographic information, and 2003-2004 DIBELS factor scores. Wilks lambda indicated significant multivariate effects for Reading Recovery status (3212 = 4.12. p \u0026lt; .001). special education status ( E4.106 = 3.50. p \u0026lt;.01). and 2003-2004 DRA factor scores (4,106 = 3.69. p \u0026lt;.01). Follow-up univariate tests indicated significant Reading Recovery status effects on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (2,109 = 3.39. p \u0026lt;.O5) and Oral Reading Fluency (2109 = 6.59, p \u0026lt; .01). Post hoc analyses revealed that: (a) Reading Recovery students in both the Incomplete Program (M = 54.81\nES = +0.65) and the Complete Program {M = 54.02\nES = +0.58) had a significantly higher adjusted mean Phoneme Segmentation Fluency score than students in the comparison condition (M = 47.23 )\n(b) students in the comparison condition (M = 40.35) and the Complete program (M- 33.45) had a higher mean Oral Reading Fluency score than students receiving the Incomplete Program {M = 21.62\nES = -0.91)\nand (c) students in the comparison condition had a higher adjusted mean Oral Reading Fluency score (A/f = 40.35) than students receiving the Complete program (Af = 33.45\nES =-0.33). No program by race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African-American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. ITBS Reading NCE. A total of 140 Reading Recovery students (65%) and 562 comparison students (65%) had matching 2004-2005 Reading Recovery subtest scores, demographic information, and 2003-2004 DRA factor scores. The ANCOVA indicated statistically significant effects for Reading Recovery status (2,591 = 6.62. p \u0026lt;.001). free lunch status (1,591 = 7.83. p \u0026lt;.01). and 2003-2004 DRA/Observation Survey factor scores (1,591 = 195.81. p \u0026lt;.001). No program by race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African-American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. Post hoc analyses showed that comparison students (M = 53.82) had a significantly higher adjusted mean ITBS Reading NCE score than students receiving the Complete program (AT = 46.65\nES = -0.34). The effect size for African-American students receiving a complete program was -0.46. versus 0.09 for those receiving an incomplete program. Exploratory and supplemental results. Exploratory analyses of second and third grade results showed no effects on 2004-2005 DRA and effect sizes ranged from -0.16 to -1.34 on ITBS for Reading Recovery students. These results need to be viewed with caution, however, due to low matching rates in second grade and the lack of a true pretest measure. There was no relationship between number of teacher years of experience with Reading Recovery and ITBS standardized 9n residuals or DRA standardized residuals for students receiving a complete program, after controlling for 2003-2004 DRA factor scores and student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status. Likewise, there was no relationship between number of sessions attended and ITBS residuals. A statistically significant, small positive relationship was observed between total number of sessions attended and DRA residuals (r = 0.21, p \u0026lt;.O5). The median effect size estimate across all posttests for African-American students with a complete program was Md = +0.17, with a range from -0.25 to +0.52. For African-American students receiving an incomplete program, effect size estimates ranged from -0.78 to +0.50, with a median of -0.23. Thus, receiving a complete program yielded a directional advantage for African-American students, whereas the reverse occurred for receiving an incomplete program. FINDINGS Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? 4 m  The Reading Recovery program had equal effects on African-American and other students.  Students receiving the complete program had significantly higher adjusted means than comparison students on Phoneme Segmentation (ES = +0.58) and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (ES = +0.36)  Students receiving an incomplete program had significantly higher adjusted means than comparison students on Phoneme Segmentation (ES = +0.65).  Students in the comparison condition had significantly higher adjusted means than students receiving a complete program on Oral Reading Fluency (ES = -0.33) and on ITBS Reading NCE scores (ES = -0.34).  Students in the comparison condition had significantly higher adjusted means than students receiving an incomplete program on DRA test scores (ES = -0.68) and Oral Reading Fluency (ES = -0.91).  No relationship was observed between teacher experience with Reading Recovery and 2004- 2005 student achievement outcomes after controlling for 2003-2004 achievement, student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status.  No relationship was observed between number of Reading Recovery sessions and 2004- 2005 ITBS Reading NCE scores, after controlling for 2003-2004 achievement, student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status.  A small but statistically significant positive relationship was observed between number of Reading Recovery sessions and 2004-2005 DRA test scores, after controlling for 2003-2004 achievement, student ethnicity, gender, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status.  The median effect size estimate across all posttests for African-American students receiving a complete program was +0.16\nfor students receiving an incomplete program, the median effect size estimate was -0.09.  Positive effects of Reading Recovery tended to be associated with lower-order or beginning reading skills like phoneme segmentation and hearing and recording sounds, while less positive effects tended to be associated with more complex, higher-order skills like Oral Reading Fluency and DRA scores. n What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005? Classroom observations indicate that Reading Recovery teachers instructional practices conform to the recommendations and requirements of the program throughout the district. Given that there are no national comparisons or benchmarks for the RRIAl, a mean of approximately 3.50 on a 4.00 scale suggests a high level of Reading Recovery implementation in the district. Site researchers noted only three areas in which some teachers were observed below average to some degree, reading familiar stories, appropriate pacing of the lesson components, and working 10 with letters and or/words. However, the observed lack of quality implementation in some classrooms in reading familiar stories and appropriate pacing of the lesson components might begin to explain the lack of oral reading fluency, text reading, and ITBS effects for Reading Recovery students. There appears to be a high level of consistency of program delivery across the district. This suggests that generally teachers have a high degree of fidelity to the model. In addition, the student achievement analysis found that there was no relationship between teacher experience with Reading Recovery and 2005 achievement scores after controlling for 2004 achievement and other variables. What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? The data indicate that African-American students made up a majority of the students participating in Reading Recovery in the 18 schools included in this study. This finding shouldnt be surprising since African-Americans are the majority of the students in each of the participating schools. Information compiled from the student achievement analyses also indicates the percentage of African-American students receiving Reading Recovery services (75.2%) is very similar to the ethnic makeup of the students used for comparison purposes (73.6%). However, Reading Recovery students were more likely to receive free or reduced-price lunch (84.3% vs. 73.1%) and special education services (15.7% vs. 8.6%) than comparison students, and were more likely to be male (58.1% vs. 48.0%). What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions? Table 11 indicates that African-American students, when compared with Reading Recovery students of other ethnicities, were nearly equally represented in two of the three program specific measures examined. The percentage of African-American students Discontinued at 43.3%, was not considerably different than the percentage of students Discontinued of other ethnic backgrounds, 46.3%. In addition, in the Incomplete status, the percentage of African-Americans (21.3%) was, again, not much different than students from other ethnicities (25.9%). African- American students, at 34.5%, were more likely to be Recommended for further actions than other students (27.8%). 4 African-American students were, however, more likely to be in the Low/Lower Middle reading group at the end of the school year than other students (74.3% vs. 61.8%). This finding may present a dilemma for the program and the district. While African-American students are generally progressing similarly to other students on program-specific measures, at the end of the school year, the majority of African-American students are still struggling to maintain or falling below grade level in reading. About 22% of scheduled sessions were missed due to the teacher being unavailable (7%), student absence (6%), teacher absence (5%), or the student being unavailable (4%). These missed sessions could contribute to the mean number of sessions per week being 3.5. What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Reading Recovery teachers had extremely favorable attitudes toward the Reading Recovery program. Teachers reported a thorough understanding of the program, that they received adequate professional development which was valuable for improving the achievement of African- American students, and that they had the support from teachers in the school. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers also reported receiving extensive administrative, Reading Coach, 114 - V and district support. The items and areas of most concern were sufficient planning time, enough tutors to fully implement the program, and time to routinely monitor first grade students progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery tutoring. Additionally, Reading Recovery teachers indicated that only 63.6% of faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade and that parents are more involved in the literacy program of this school as a result of the program. Reading Recovery teachers, on average, appear to be more experienced and better educated. Eighty percent had a Masters degree or beyond in educational attainment and 100% reported at least six year or more years of teaching experience. In addition, the majority (68.18%) reported one to five years of experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. The four teachers in-training were equally committed and positive about the program and overall, felt they were well prepared to work with students. The teachers in-training also felt strongly that Reading Recovery helped to equalize learning and achievement opportunities for African-American students. Teachers in-training emphasized the importance of using data to monitor the progress of the students to develop effective teaching strategies based on the individual needs of each student. Finally, teachers in-training also reported the need for more time to plan and implement as well as for continuing support to understand Reading Recovery components more thoroughly. What are the perceptions of principals, regular first-grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A review of Reading Recovery principal interview responses indicates that principals are very supportive and actively involved in the program. All of the principals interviewed reported that they understood the program and were advocates of their program having a positive impact on overall student achievement. Principals indicated that the one-on-one tutoring program supplements and enhances the schools balanced literacy program. Most principals agreed that, through Reading Recovery, the achievement gap is being bridged for their African-American students. Principals also noted that teachers were very supportive of the program. K-3 classroom teachers shared the principals enthusiasm for the Reading Recovery program, as evidenced by responses on the RRCTQ. A majority of the classroom teachers reported that they had an understanding of the program, were generally supportive, and that student achievement had been positively impacted. Principals and teachers also agreed that most of the resources and support needed for effective program implementation was available\nhowever, they also reported an ongoing need for additional teachers and tutors to support more students and time to plan, review student progress, and collaborate together. All (102) of the teachers responding agreed that their school should continue the Reading Recovery program. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents were generally very pleased with the results of the Reading Recovery program. Approximately 90% of the parents responding to the parent survey agreed that: Reading Recovery tutoring had improved their childs reading skills and because of Reading Recovery their child will be successful in school. Less than three percent of those who responded reported that they did not know or understand the program. In the three open-ended responses parents indicated a very good understanding of the program, appreciation of one-on-one tutoring sessions, and the improvement in their childs reading skills. However, a few parents did express the need for longer and more frequent tutoring sessions and more opportunities to talk with the Reading Recovery teacher about their childs progress. 12 RECOMMENDED PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS In summary, the Little Rock School District has a strong Reading Recovery program implementation. Teachers, principals, and parents appear to be actively engaged in the program and the district tries to provide adequate levels of resources and support. However, the lack of clear program effects may be the result of factors that have been identified in prior studies of Reading Recovery. Possible factors and recommended program modifications to produce greater achievement gains include:  It would be expected that Reading Recovery students would perform better on assessments more closely aligned with the instructional program (DRA, DIBELS, Observation Survey) than the norm-referenced, group-administered ITBS. In m particular, Reading Recovery enhanced learning for complete program students tests involving Phoneme Segmentation and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words, However, it had less positive effects on tests assessing Oral Reading Fluency and ITBS Reading NCE scores. Reading Recovery is also most likely serving as a first line of defense for students who many later be referred for special education services. While classroom teachers are receiving help for their neediest students, this may put an extra burden on the program that was designed to help students who could benefit quickly from quality instruction in 20 weeks. w  The district should examine the feasibility of expanding the program to provide tutoring support to all incoming first grade students who need services. In the 2004- 2005 school year, the 18 Reading Recovery schools indicated that 365 students needed tutoring services and approximately half of this number received a complete round of lessons and were discontinued. The Reading Recovery program guidelines state that if a school has more children who need services than one teacher can provide, then it will never realize the full benefit of Reading Recovery for later school achievement. It is especially difficult for classroom teachers to continue to scaffold discontinued students learning while supporting a large number of other at-risk students reading below grade level. q q q  In addition to an expanded program, a transitional plan for students who have discontinued should be explored. The data suggest that after Reading Recovery students are discontinued and return to the classroom at the same reading level as their peers, they may not maintain the same growth rate and achievement does not keep pace with their peers. Although research indicates that former Reading Recovery students perform well in their classes, some slippage in achievement can occur (Clay, 1993). Although Clay (1993) provides guidelines for transition back to the classroom after the student is discontinued\nit is possible that students were returned to the classroom without benefit of a transition plan. As noted by Reading Recovery teachers, few teachers have the opportunity to routinely monitor discontinued students progress. Such a plan could involve daily monitored reading RI that would provide another buffer against slippage. Also in tutoring sessions, children have opportunities to read texts at their instruction level on a daily basis, but they may not have adequate time for daily reading in the regular classroom. q q  The quality of instruction that Reading Recovery students receive once they return to the classroom is an important factor that was not examined in this study. Increased professional development of classroom teachers would enable them to understand how to integrate their Reading Recovery students back into the classroom once they have been discontinued, and how to provide the appropriate instruction and feed back so that students would continue to improve. 13m9 4 Bl  Increased partnership with UALR to help with the development of a transition plan and professional development for classroom teachers would seem to be warranted given these study results.  Additional research could provide critical insight into the optimum classroom environment for discontinued, recommended, and incomplete Reading Recovery students. Further studies might also provide a more in-depth analysis of a small number of students whose gains were maintained to determine what factors contributed to their success and how these factors can be generalized to all Reading Recovery schools. EXPECTATIONS OF PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS Reading Recovery has valuable components that, with adaptation and modification, can be even more effective. With the recommended program modifications, the Little Rock School District could expect: Progressive gains on standardized test scores for African-American students over time. An increased number of students involved in the Reading Recovery program. A greater adherence to Reading Recovery guidelines, especially those relating to transition services and the number of sessions required for optimum benefits. More teachers throughout the district better able to serve students at-risk in the areas of literacy and reading. Sustained achievement of students upon completion of the Reading Recovery program. A stronger relationship with UALR professionals that would continue to provide the Little Rock School District with the most up-to-date research findings and best instructional practices for reading and literacy instruction. 14 4 4 EVALUATION OF READING RECOVERY IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: 2005 AGGREGATE REPORT INTRODUCTION The Little Rock School District began implementing Reading Recovery during the 1995-1996 school year in two schools. During the first four years of implementation, the Little Rock School District was part of the Pulaski County Reading Recovery Site. By 1998 there were eight trained Reading Recovery teachers in seven schools in the Little Rock School District. In July 1999 the district became a Reading Recovery Site hiring a full-time teacher leader. In 2000-2001 the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) began conducting the Reading Recovery teacher training for the district. Between the 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 school years UALR trained 17 Reading Recovery teachers for the district. At the end of the 2004-2005 school year the Little Rock School District had 28 trained Reading Recovery teachers serving 18 of the 34 elementary schools in the district. Reading Recovery is one of eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by Little Rock schools. Currently, Little Rock School District funds are used to support the program. The goal of Reading Recovery is to dramatically reduce the number of first grade students who have difficulty learning to read and write and to reduce the cost of these learners to educational systems. Reading Recovery is a short-term intervention program of one-to-one tutoring for the lowest-achieving first graders. The intervention is most effective when it is available to all students who need it and is used as a supplement to good classroom teaching. Individual students receive a half-hour lesson each school day for 12 to 20 weeks with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher. As soon as students can read within the average range of their class and demonstrate that they can continue to achieve, their lessons are discontinued and new students begin individual instruction. Reading Recovery was developed by New Zealand educator and researcher Dr. Marie M. Clay over 20 years ago. More than one million first graders have been served in 49 states since Reading Recovery was introduced in the United States in 1984. Professional development is an 15 essential component of the Reading Recovery program. Training utilizes a three-tiered approach that includes teachers, teacher leaders, and university trainers. In schools, special trained teachers work with children. At the site level, teacher leaders work with children, train teachers, and assist and monitor implementation with the help of a site coordinator. In university training centers, trainers work with children, train teacher leaders, engage in research, and support program implementation at affiliated sites. Professional development for teachers and teacher leaders begins with year-long graduate level study and is followed by ongoing training in succeeding years. Since 1984, the program reports that 80% of students who completed the full 12 to 20 week series of lessons, and 59% of all students who have any lessons in Reading Recovery, can read and write with the average range of performance of their class. Program follow-up studies also indicate 4 that most Reading Recovery students also do well on standardized tests and maintain their gains in later years. The evaluation plan for the Reading Recovery program in Little Rock School District included: (1) analyses of Reading Recovery student achievement and program data, (2) principal, teacher, and 4 parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. This 4 report is part of a larger district study of four programs evaluating the effectiveness in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students. This report includes results from 18 elementary schools participating in the Reading Recovery program. RESEACH QUESTIONS The major goals of this research study were to evaluate African-American student achievement outcomes, program implementation fidelity, and principal, teacher, and parent perceptions concerning the Reading Recovery tutoring program for first grade students. Student achievement results on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment a (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement were analyzed to compare the progress of first graders enrolled in the Reading a Recovery intervention program and comparison students in 2004-2005. Program implementation ratings were obtained from observations of 14 tutoring sessions in nine schools. The survey and a 16interview results are based on the perceptions of 156 classroom teachers in grades K-3, 22 experienced Reading Recovery teachers, four teachers in-training, 10 principals, and 95 parents. The Reading Recovery evaluation was structured around the following seven primary and supplemental research questions\nPrimary evaluation question:  Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) evaluation questions:  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-2005? q  What is the level of participation in Reading Recovery by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other student participants in Reading Recovery in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? What proportion of scheduled sessions are actually held, and what are the reasons for missed sessions?  What are the perceptions of Reading Recovery teachers regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of principals, regular first-grade teachers, and other teachers in the school regarding Reading Recovery program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Reading Recovery students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 17EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES The evaluation period extended from February 2005 through May 2005. The evaluation design was based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from Reading Recovery intervention observations, principal and teacher in-training interviews, classroom teachers, Reading Recovery teachers, parent surveys, and Reading Recovery program data. Reading Recovery student-level achievement data on the ITBS, DRA, DIBELS, and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement was received in fall 2005 and incorporated in this report. The primary data collectors in this study were Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) trained site researchers. Site researchers (1) conducted Reading Recovery intervention observations, (2) administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey, (3) conducted principal and teacher in-training interviews, and (4) collected program data. Principals at Reading Recovery schools were responsible for administering the classroom teacher and Reading Recovery parent surveys. Participants Little Rock School District is located in Central Arkansas and serves approximately 26,500 students, with African-Americans representing approximately 67% of the district student population, in 49 schools in an urban area with a population of 184,000. In the 2004-2005 school year 18 elementary schools and 230 first grade students, of which 173 are African-American, 27 are Caucasian, 22 are Hispanic, and the remaining 8 are other ethnicities, participated in the Reading Recovery program in the district. However, the schools indicated that 365 first grade students needed Reading Recovery services. Three schools were in their first year of program implementation (Bale, 1 Stephens, and Terry) and survey and observation data were not collected from these schools. However, randomly selected teachers in-training and principals from these three schools were interviewed for this study. A profile of the Reading Recovery schools and participants included in this study is shown in Table 1. The profile data were obtained from either the 2003-2004 Common Core of Data from the National Center for Education Statistics, the 2004-2005 Reading Recovery Site Report for Little Rock from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University, or provided by the district. As indicated in Table 1, the number of years schools have implemented the 18 Reading Recovery program ranged from one to 10. The Reading Recovery schools were predominately African-American, ranging from 50% of the student population to 99%. The district reported that four Reading Recovery schools did not receive Title I funding and the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced price lunch ranged from a low of 33% to a high of 94% at all Reading Recovery schools. Table 1 Reading Recovery Participating Schools: 2004-2005 School Name Students Teachets Aftican- Ametican Bale Elementary School 319 27 87% School Wide Populalion Asian 0% Hispanic Caucasian 7% 5% %Freeand Reduced Lurch 88.4% ReaiiTgRecowiyParticiMnlWaTOlion % Below Proficient* Number of RR Teachets Number of K-3 Teachers Nutter of RR Yeats n RR Students Piogram 45% 10 Bi Booker Arts Magnet ES 605 55 55% 1% 4% 40% 63.3% 22% 20 32 Bl Carver Magnet Elem School Chicot Elem School David ODodd El School Franklin Incentive Elem School Geyer Springs El School 496 536 261 387 299 43 44 27 35 23 54% 75% 58% 97% 89% 3% 3% 40% 53.0% 18% 16 16 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 10% 86.6% 38% 17 26 10% 32% 68.9% 30% 10 0% 2% 943% 51% 12 18 4% 7% 806% 48% Bl Gibbs Magnet El School Meadowdiff Elem School Mitchell Incentive Elem School Otter Creek El School Rightsell Incentive Elem School Stephens Elem School 310 349 156 511 262 499 30 24 22 31 26 39 52% 77% 98% 56% 99% 95% 4% 3% 41% 43.9% 11% 14 1% 9% 13% 85.1% 44% 0% 0% 2% 91.7% 59% 1% 6% 36% 55.7% 19% 14 10 0% 0% 1% 876% 49% 1% 3% 2% 90.6% 59% 18 B! Terry Elem School 577 36 51% 7% 5% 36% 475% 12% 18 Wakefield Elem School 451 29 83% 0% 15% 2% 920% 33% 13 18 Watson Elem School 456 34 95% 0% 3% 2% 932% 64% 15 10 Williams Magnet Elem School 461 36 52% 9% 1% 38% 33.6% 10% 13 13 Wilson Elem School 285 27 89% 1% 4% 6% 91.9% 36% H 4 * Proficiency levels are based on 2003-2004 school year ACTAAP Grade 4 Reading, Language, and Writing data. 1 8 1 4 7 2 3 3 5 1 8 9 2 7 1 8 8 7 2 8 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 9 5 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8 3 2 3 1 1 3 3 9 5 4 19Instrumentation Six instruments were developed by CREP to collect the evaluation data: a classroom observation tool, a principal interview, a teacher in-training interview, a Reading Recovery teacher questionnaire, a classroom teacher questionnaire, and a parent survey. A detailed description of each instrument follows. Classroom Observation Measure Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAl) 4 The RRIAl was designed for observation in Reading Recovery classrooms and was developed by researchers at CREP and Reading Recovery faculty at UALR. Ratings are organized Ql around two categories: Reading Recovery Program Components and Reading Recovery Program Strategies. The RRIAl observation tool provides an overall rating for each category based on a rubric that ranges from (1) poor or unacceptable\n(2) below average in comparison to other programs observed\n(3) meets nearly all standards of program quality\nand (4) above average in comparison to other programs. The RRIAl has been aligned to the essential components of the Reading Recovery program. Sub-categories of the program components include: reading familiar stories, reading a story that was read for the first time the day before, working with letters, writing a story, assembling a cut-up story, and introducing and reading a new book. The tool was designed to be utilized by experienced Reading Recovery trainers during the 30-minute tutoring session with additional time allocated for observer questions and examination of student records after the session. Site observers received observation protocol training in February 2005 and a copy of the observation guidelines are included in Appendix A. Site observers were also asked to provide overall perceptions of Reading Recovery program implementation in the Little Rock schools. Interviews Reading Recovery Principal Interview Randomly selected principals from 10 Reading Recovery schools participated in approximately 45-minute phone interviews with CREP researchers. Interview questions addressed 20 the principals general experiences and reactions to the Reading Recovery implementation and the associated outcomes for the school, students, teachers, and parents. A copy of the principal interview protocol with summary responses is included in Appendix B. Reading Recovery Teacher in-Training Interview In the 2004-2005 school year, six teachers were beginning their first year as a Reading Recovery teacher and considered as teachers in-training. Three were located in experienced schools and three were located in the schools beginning their first year of implementation: Bale, Stephens, and Terry. Four randomly selected teachers in-training participated in an approximately 45-minute phone interview with CREP researchers. Interview questions addressed the teachers in-training experiences with and perceptions of the Reading Recovery program implementation with regard to such areas as q resources, professional development, parent involvement, support, and student outcomes. A copy of the teacher in-training interview protocol with summary responses is included in Appendix C. Surveys Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) 4 Reading Recovery teachers in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools were asked to complete the RRTQ, which includes four sections. Section I contains 20 items to which teachers respond using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed the general impressions of the Reading Recovery program, professional I development, support for the program, impacts on student achievement, and alignment of state and district reading and language arts standards. In a second section, teachers were asked to indicate to what degree the listed items occurred. The focus of the four items were (1) administration support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\n(2) Reading Coach support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\n(3) district support of Reading Recovery teacher efforts\nand (4) the time to routinely monitor first n grade students progress after they were discontinued from tutoring. Open-ended questions asked Reading Recovery teachers to respond to the statements: Whaf are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? What are the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? Do 21 you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? A final section of the RRTQ contained general questions regarding years of teaching experience, race, and level of education. Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) All K-3 teachers who taught in experienced Reading Recovery schools were asked to complete the RRCTQ, which contains 13 items to which teachers respond using a five-point Likert- type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed the specific program elements of Reading Recovery such as: understanding of the program, impacts on student achievement, teacher support for the program, and parent involvement. Open-ended questions asked classroom teachers to respond to the statements: Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery program in your school. What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery Bl program? Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? final section of the RRCTQ contained general questions regarding years of teaching experience, race, and level of 4 education. Reading Recovery Parent Survey (RRPS) Parents whose first grade children were currently receiving Reading Recovery tutoring services were asked to complete the RRPS, that contains six items to which parents respond using a five-point Likert-type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed general impressions of the program such as: improvement in childs reading skills, childs enjoyment of tutoring sessions, and opportunities to communicate with the Reading Recovery teacher. Both English and Spanish versions were made available to schools. Open-ended questions asked parents to respond to the statements: Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery tutoring program at your childs school. What is the BEST thing about your childs involvement with the Reading Recovery tutoring program? What CHANGES would you like to see in the Reading Recovery tutoring program? A final section of the RRPS asked parents to indicate the race, grade, and age of their child. 22Program Data Reading Recovery program information was obtained from data submitted to the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University in 2004-2005. Each year the schools and district submit teacher, school, and student program data and receive a site report. The report represents an examination of Reading Recovery student outcomes for Little Rock and accounts for all children served by Reading Recovery within the site during the 2004-2005 school year. In addition, attention is given to implementation factors that may be supporting or hindering the success of the intervention at the site. Student Achievement Results ^1 In addition to the program data, interviews, survey, and observation tools cited above, reading achievement data are derived from scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement. A description of each assessment follows. Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). The ITBS Form A is a norm-referenced group administered test that measures the skills and achievement of students in grades K-8 and was developed at The University of Iowa. The ITBS provides an in-depth assessment of students achievement of important educational objectives. Tests in Reading, Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, Science, and Source of Information yield reliable and comprehensive information both about the development of students skills and about their ability to think critically. The emphasis of the K-1 assessment is on academic skills found in the early childhood curriculum. These tests are neither measures of readiness for school nor readiness to read. Rather, they assess the extent to which a child is cognitively prepared to begin work in the academic aspects of the curriculum. Test materials have been extensively field tested for psychometric soundness and evaluated for fairness to gender. racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). The Developmental Reading Assessment provides teachers with a method for assessing and documenting primary students development as readers over time with a literature-based instructional reading program. The DRA is designed to be 23used in K-3 classrooms with rich literacy environments. The assessments are conducted during one- on-one reading conferences as children read specially selected assessment texts. A set of 20 stories, which increase in difficulty, are used for the assessment. The DRA evaluates two major aspects of reading\naccuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and retelling of narrative stories. Questions pertaining to concepts about print are also included in the assessment with lower leveled texts. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). DIBELS is a tool for early identification of children with potential literacy problems and an assessment of response to instruction. The assessment is individually administered to K-3 children at least three times per year. The DIBELS assessment is designed to enable educators to modify their approach if a student is not on course to achieve reading goals. The Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development at the University of Oregon constructed DIBELS (2000). The Institute reports it has validated the instruments ability to predict outcomes and has tested its reliability with young children across the country. Reading Recovery schools that have received Reading Excellence Act or Reading First grant funding use the DIBELS assessment in Little Rock. An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement: Reading Recovery Subtests. Six tasks in Marie Clays (2002) An Observation of Early Literacy Achievement (Observation Survey) were used as pretest and posttest measures. The Survey tasks have the qualities of sound assessment instruments with established reliabilities and validities. The purpose of the assessment is to determine 4 r an appropriate level of text difficulty and to record, using a running record, what the child does when reading continuous text. All six tasks of the Observation Survey were administered to Reading Recovery students in the fall (start of the school year) and/or at entry to the intervention. These scores served as pretest measures in the evaluation design. The six tasks were also administered to Reading Recovery students upon discontinuing or exiting from the program. In the spring (end of school year), the six tasks were again administered to all students who received Reading Recovery services during the year. Year-end scores served as the posttest measures in comparing the progress made by Reading Recovery children in the various end-of-program status groups. 24PROCEDURE Data for the evaluation were collected March-May 2005 for the 2004-2005 school year. On February 16, 2005 principals were given an overview of the evaluation and timelines for collecting data. On March 3-4 and April 14-15, 14 tutoring observations were conducted in nine randomly selected experienced Reading Recovery schools by two Reading Recovery content experts from Georgia State and The Ohio State Universities. Only experienced Reading Recovery teachers were observed. On March 23 a CREP trained site researcher administered the Reading Recovery teacher survey to experienced teachers at a regularly scheduled monthly meeting at UALR. In April and May principals in experienced Reading Recovery schools administered the classroom teacher q questionnaire to K-3 grade teachers. Principals also administered the parent survey to parents whose children were currently receiving first grade intervention services in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools. Four teachers in-training and 10 principals were randomly selected from the 18 Reading Recovery schools to participate in a phone interview in April and May conducted by CREP researchers. Reading Recovery program data were received in summer 2005 from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University. Student achievement data were received from the district in fall 2005. METHODS - STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Sample. The sample included 1,094 first grade students who attended one of 18 schools that implemented the Reading Recovery program during the 2004-2005 school year. Of these, 230 q were referred to the Reading Recovery program, and 864 were in the comparison group. The percentages of students who were African-American or of Limited English Proficiency were similar q between the comparison and Reading Recovery groups (73.6% versus 75.6% and 7.3% versus 8.7%, respectively\nsee Figure 1). However, Reading Recovery students were more likely to be eligible for q free or reduced-price lunch (84.3% versus 73.1%), to receive special education services (15.7% versus 8.6%), and to be male (58.1% versus 48.0%\nsee Figure 1). A random sample of about 11 comparison students was selected from each school (total n = 189) for administration of the DIBELS and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery test batteries. 25I Figure 1. Percentage of Students with Selected Demographic Characteristics by Reading Recovery Status 100.0 90.0------- 84.3 80.0 70.0 - 60.0 - 50.0 - 40.0 - 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 73.6 75.6 ft l?\u0026gt;( if African American 73.1 15.7 p. 7.3 8-7 8.6p^ 48.0 58^1 S Free lunch LEP Special Education Male  o 7- ??  B Comparison  Reading Recovery a Reading Recovery Treatment Level. In the Reading Recovery program, students who are deemed to have attained a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned an end-of-program status of discontinued. Children who received 20 or more weeks of Reading Recovery services, but who do not attain a reading level equivalent to their peers are assigned a status of recommended action. Children who have received fewer than 20 weeks were assigned incomplete program status. Children designated as unknown status were removed from the program in fewer than 20 weeks due to reasons other than the school year ending. Other children were designated as having moved during the school year. As shown in Figure 2, the median number of sessions of recommended action {Md = 68.50\nn = 68) children was actually higher than the median for discontinued students {Md = 57.00\nn = 90). The medians for incomplete students {n = 46) and unknown students (n = 12) were very similar {Md = 44.63 versus 46.08, respectively\nsee Figure 2). a For the purposes of this study, recommended action and discontinued students were categorized as complete program\n incomplete and unknown students were categorized as incomplete 26program\n\" and students who moved were eliminated from the analyses. This left a total of 216 Reading Recovery students: 158 with a complete program, and 58 with an incomplete program. Figure 2. Boxplot of Number of Reading Recovery Sessions by Student Status Upon Exiting the Program 80- (A C o w (A Q s Ct  40- M o o I- 20- Discontinued T T T Incomplete Moved Unknown Recommended action o o o T * T Status  Note. Heavy dark lines indicate median. Gray boxes indicate interquartile range. 'Whiskers indicate range, excepting extreme values. Extreme values denoted by circles or asterisks. n 21 Measures. Pretest (covariate) measures included: (a) Spring. 2004 Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores, (b) Fall 2005 Observation Survey: Reading Recovery program subtests that included Letter Identification, Word Test, Concepts About Print, Writing Vocabulary, Hearing and 4 Recording Sounds in Words, and Text Reading\nand (c) the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) subtests in Letter Naming Fluency. Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Word Use Fluency. Outcome measures included Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading Normal Curve Equivalent Scores. DRA scores. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and DIBELS subtests administered in Spring 2005. To achieve some parsimony in the analyses, pretest measures were subjected to a principal components analysis, and regressionbased factors scores were constructed for pretest DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery 4 4 subtests, and the DIBELS subtests. A single factor accounted for 60.1% and 60.5% of the variance in the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery subtests, and the DIBELS subtests, respectively. Outcome measures included the DRA and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery. DIBELS subtests, and ITBS Reading. Student achievement analyses. A 3 (Program Status) by 2 (African-American versus other) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed on two test batteries, using student gender, the pertinent pretest factor score, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status as covariates. One test battery included the DRA and subscales of the Observation Survey: Reading Recovery. The second test battery included subtests for the DIBELS. A similar 3 by 2 analysis of covariance was performed on ITBS Reading NCE scores using the 2003-2004 DRA score as a pretest covariate. For the multivariate analyses, Wilks lambda was used as the criterion of multivariate significance. Where Wilks lambda indicated a significant multivariate effect, follow-up univariate analyses were performed on each outcome variable using the Bonferroni procedure to control for experimentwise alpha. When significant univariate results were found, post hoc analyses were performed using Scheffes procedure. Effect size estimates were computed for all posttests by subtracting the adjusted mean for the comparison group from the adjusted mean from the Reading Recovery group within levels of race, then dividing by the total standard deviation of the posttest (Cohen. 1988: Hedges \u0026amp; Olkin. 1985). For ITBS Reading NCE effect size estimates, the population 28 standard deviation of 21.06 was used. The effect size estimates (ES) represent the standardized difference between treatment and comparison group means, which allows for comparison across measures that have different metrics. Exploratory and supplementary analyses: Impact of teacher experience and number of sess/ons. The number of years experience with Reading Recovery was recorded for each teacher. Years experience ranged from 1 to 10 years. ITBS Reading NCE scores and DRA test scores for 2004-2005 were regressed on 2003-2004 DRA/RR Observation Survey factor scores and dummy-coded variables representing student ethnicity, free lunch status, gender, special education status. and LEP status. Standardized residuals were saved from each of these analyses and plotted against teacher years of experience to graphically assess the nature of the relationship between teacher experience and teacher effectiveness in Reading Recovery for students who received a Complete program. Standardized residuals for each of these 2004-2005 tests were also plotted against number of Reading Recovery sessions received for all students (i.e., those who received either a Complete or Incomplete program). DATA COLLECTION Table 2 provides the type of measures, instrument names, administration timeline, and a brief data collection description for each of the instruments. 29 4 Table 2 Data Collection Summary t-fl Type of Measure Site Visits Surveys Interviews Data Analysis and Reporting Instrument RR Implementation Assessment Instrument RR Teacher Questionnaire RR Classroom Teacher Questionnaire RR Parent Survey Principal Interviews Teacher In-Training Interviews ITBS, DRA. DIBELS, \u0026amp; Observation Survey\nRR Little Rock School District Reading Recovery Aggregate Report Timeline Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Fall 2005 Description/ _____ Response rate  14 conducted  22 respondents/100%  156 respondents/  approximately 90%  95 respondents/9 Spanish  approximately 86%_____  10 conducted  4 conducted  1,094 first grade students . 230 RR  864 comparison group  1 Final Report RESULTS The results of the Reading Recovery evaluation are presented below by instrument. A copy of each instrument is included in Appendix I. In the Conclusion section, findings are synthesized across instruments to address each research question. J -i Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAl) As indicated in the description of the RRIAl, the observation procedure primarily focuses on Reading Recovery Program Components and Program Strategies. The site observers used a four-point rubric (1 = poor or unacceptable, 2 = below average in comparison to other programs observed. 3 = meets nearly all standards of program quality, and 4 = above average in comparison to other programs) to rate the frequency and application of components and strategies of Reading Recovery instruction. More precise data regarding observed Reading Recovery instructional practices measured by the four-point rubric for the 14 observations are presented in Table 3. 30 Reading Recovery Program Components The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Components was 3.46 which suggests a high level of program implementation. Of the six subcategories the highest observed ratings were\nassembiing a cut-up story and introducing and reading a new book observed to be above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The program component subcategory with the lowest observed rating was working with tetters and/or words using magnetic tetters observed to be above average in only 35.7% of tutoring sessions. Reading a famitiar story and reading a story that was read for the first time the day before was observed to above average in 64.3% of visits. The six program components were observed in at least 92.9% of 14 tutoring sessions. Reading Recovery Program Strategies Cl The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Strategies was 3.61 which also indicates a high level of instructional effectiveness. Of the eight During Tutoring Lesson subcategories the highest observed rating was for appropriate text setected throughout the tesson 4 observed to above average in 85.7% of tutoring sessions. The During Tutoring Lesson subcategory with the lowest observed rating was echo of focus throughout the tesson observed to be above average in just 42.9% of tutoring sessions. For the After Tutoring Lesson, has high expectations for the chiid and articutates chitds strengths and needs were observed to be above average in 78.6% of tutoring sessions and accurate and up-to-date records were observed to be above average in 71.4% of tutoring sessions. The Reading Recovery Program Strategies were observed in at least 85.7 of tutoring sessions. Observer Perceptions of Reading Recovery Program Implementation Site observers reported being impressed with the dedication and commitment of the Reading Recovery teachers to the fidelity of the teaching procedures and the integrity of the implementation of the program. Almost all teachers observed were meeting all the standards, guidelines, and expectations of the Reading Recovery Council of North America and the North American Trainers m Group. Since observations occurred in March and April, most of the students observed were second- round students, since teachers had discontinued their first-round students. Teachers reported that students who did not discontinue from Reading Recovery during the first-round were being considered 31for further intervention services. Site observers also reported that the Reading Recovery program in the Little Rock district receives an adequate allocation of time, materials, and other resources. However, several teachers and principals expressed the need for additional Reading Recovery n w teachers in their schools. Reading Recovery teachers also reported teaching literacy small groups the rest of the day which enables them to give their Reading Recovery students more attention during the instructional day. By teaching these literacy groups, site observers suggested that the Reading Recovery teachers expertise and knowledge gained from their training and practice benefits children across 4 q q several grade levels. During visits site observers suggested areas in which some Reading Recovery teachers needed improvement. These instructional areas included: (1) hearing and recording sounds in words\n(2) making and breaking\n(3) doing away with the helping hand\nand (4) maintaining up-to-date records on each child as a basis for instruction. A summary of observers general findings for each classroom observation is included in Appendix D. q q q q q 32 ATable 3 Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument: Spring 2005 N=14 1. II. Please check: Observed: 0 Not Observed: N Please rate each of the following items in terms of the quality of implementation by using the appropriate number according to the following scales: Quality 1 = Poor or unacceptable 2 = Below average in comparison to other programs obsen/ed 3 = Meets nearly all standards of program quality 4 = Above average in comparison to other programs Obseived Not Observed Reading Recoveiy Progtam Components % Poor 4 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 92.86 7.14 Reading familiar stories Reading a story that was read for the first time the day before - incorporates nmning record Working with letters and /or words using magnetic tetters 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.86 7.14 Writing a story 0.0 92.86 7.14 Assembling a cut-up story 0.0 92.86 7.14 Introducing and reading a new book 0.0 4 (Overall rating: Follows the Reading Recovery lesson frameworks Observed Not Obsen/ed Reading Recovery Program Strategies % Poor 92.86 7.14 Appropriate pacing of lesson components 0.0 4 92.86 7.14 100.0 0.0 Appropriate text selected throughout the lesson Appropriate prompts are used for scaffolding the child to problem solve 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Child is engaged in constaictive problem solving 7.14 92.86 7.14 Echo of focus throughout the lesson 0.0 92.86 7.14 Procedures are adjusted according to child's needs 0.0 92.86 7.14 Balance of fluency phrasing practice and problem solving 0.0 85.71 7.14 Opportunities to develop phonological awareness within the lesson 0.0 85.71 85.71 7.14 7.14 Accurate up-to-date records Articulates childs strengths and needs 0.0 0.0 85.71 7.14 Has high expectations for the child 0.0 % Below Average 1429 7.14 4286 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Below Average 21.43 7.14 7.14 0.0 7.14 0.0 7.14 7.14 7.14 0.0 0.0 Quality % Meets 21.43 28.57 1429 21.43 7.14 7.14 Quality % Meets 7.14 0.0 1429 21.43 42.86 1429 7.14 21.43 14.29 14.29 14.29 Overall Rating: \"NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from observers. % Above Average 6429 6429 35.71 71.43 85.71 85.71 Mean:3.46 SD\n0.54 % Above Average 64.29 85.71 78.57 71.43 42.86 78.57 78.57 64.29 71.43 78.57 78.57 Mean: 3.61 SO: 0.66 33 INTERVIEW RESULTS Reading Recovery Principal Interview Principals at 10 of the Reading Recovery schools were randomly selected to participate in a 45-minute phone interview. Principals were asked a series of questions regarding general program implementation, classroom level changes, program results, professional development opportunities and parental and community involvement. A summary of the principal responses can be found in Appendix B. Overall, principals were positive about the Reading Recovery program and the impact it has had on their schools. Most of the schools have been utilizing Reading Recovery for several years and faculty and staff are very comfortable with the program. Nearly all of the principals interviewed were instrumental in bringing Reading Recovery to their schools, and the decision to utilize Reading Recovery was made after considerable research and thoughtful consideration. Principals reported that Reading Recovery is a wonderful complement to the schools balanced literacy programs. The one-on-one attention the reading Recovery students receive is overwhelmingly the most effective of the strategies that the program employs. Other effective strategies mentioned included push-ins, literacy groups, running records, and the writing component. Principals reported being active advocates in their Reading Recovery programs. They described their roles as one of support and involvement, .ranging from oversight of the program to more direct involvement including student selection for the program, review of student progress, and i - ongoing meetings and collaboration with the Reading Recovery specialists. All principals noted that teachers were very supportive of the Reading Recovery program and appreciated the impact it has had on overall student achievement. Most of the resources needed for effective program implementation are available\nhowever, principals reported an ongoing need for books, additional teachers and tutors, and more planning time. Principals described the African- American population as being well-served by Reading Recovery, and most agreed that through Reading Recovery the achievement gap is being bridged for their African-American students. In most of the schools, African-American students are a large percentage of the Reading Recovery program. 34and the early intervention provided by Reading Recovery allows the students to be encouraged by being successful at a younger age. Teacher in-Training Interview In the spring 2005, four teachers in their first year in the Reading Recovery program were contacted by phone for a 30 to 45-minute phone interview. The teachers in-training were attending classes concerning Reading Recovery instruction, as well as working in their schools implementing the Reading Recovery strategies. Feedback from the teachers was solicited regarding general program information, classroom level changes, results, professional development, and parental involvement and support. A summary of the teacher in-training responses can be found in Appendix C. All teachers described the process of integrating Reading Recovery into the schools literacy program as well planned and organized. Reading Recovery teachers work individually with the lowest performing students and then follow up individual instruction with literacy groups. Reading Recovery teachers reported a thorough selection process that involved collaboration with the classroom teacher and comprehensive testing and assessment. In general, the Reading Recovery teachers reported strong support from the classroom teachers, that classroom teachers appreciate the effectiveness of the one-on-one approach, and the fact that Reading Recovery is able to provide this type of support. freeing the classroom teacher to work more effectively with the other students. 4 The Reading Recovery teachers in-training strongly felt that Reading Recovery helped to equalize learning and achievement opportunities for African-American students at their schools. Most 4 of the students in Reading Recovery are African-American, and these teachers were able to see positive gains. Reading Recovery helps all struggling readers by actively engaging them in reading and allowing them to feel successful at reading. Through detailed daily records and periodic testing all inherent in the Reading Recovery programstudent progress is effectively monitored and lessons can be planned that are tailor made for each individual child. Additionally, the Reading Recovery program often serves as a first line of defense in determining special education needs. Often, Reading Recovery will be used prior to special education referral. 4 Teachers in-training emphasized the importance of the daily data reports they collect and 4 view them as essential to the success of the program. Reading Recovery teachers collect and use 35 data to monitor the progress of the students and to help develop appropriate, effective teaching strategies based on the individual needs of the student. Data are often shared with the classroom teacher and the principal so that a collaborative team develops to help plan and implement instruction for the student. The Reading Recovery teachers in-training report a significant increase in self-confidence and improvement in overall attitude among the Reading Recovery students. As the students begin to experience success, they are less frustrated and angry. This improvement in attitude improves their classroom behavior and relationships with other teachers and students. Some of these teachers have seen dramatic increases in test scores and other achievement data, while others have not yet been able to see these gains. Again, from the perspective of the teachers in-training, the Reading Recovery program is helping to close the achievement gap of African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers in-training reported professional training that ranged from adequate to thorough. Changes in Reading Recovery course instructors led to some confusion for some of the teachers in-training, and some reported the need for increased classroom hours. However, overall, these teachers reported feeling well-prepared to work with the students. The strategies they have learned have been very helpful. Although the teachers in training reported having significant classroom experience, they are learning unique techniques that have been very beneficial. 4 There is considerable support from the district teacher, and all teachers expressed a desire and need for continuing support in the upcoming school year. Parental support has been mixed. although all the teachers reported active attempts at engaging the parents in the Reading Recovery program. Reading Recovery teachers in-training concurred that the exposure to print and the one-on-one attention were the most critical elements of the Reading Recovery program. Teachers reported the need to understand several components better, including the make and break lesson and the writing component\nand the need for time to plan and implement the program is always a factor. Overall, the components of Reading Recovery were well understood and effective. r,1 36 SURVEY RESULTS Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) Descriptive results. The results of the RRTQ are summarized in Table 4. Reading Recovery teachers had extremely favorable attitudes toward the program at their schools. As 4 illustrated in Table 4,100% of teachers strongly agreed or agreed that they have a thorough understanding of the program, teachers in their school are generally supportive of the program, ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers, Reading Recovery monthly meetings are effective and useful, instructional materials needed to implement the Reading Recovery program are readily available, and the Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. There was also strong agreement that Reading Recovery teachers received support, with 86.4% of the teachers reporting that the school administration and Reading Coach supported their efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher. Almost 75% (72.7%) of teachers reported receiving extensive district support. The items with the highest level of disagreement (disagree and strongly disagree) concerned Reading Recovery teachers having sufficient planning time (36.4%), enough tutors to fully implement the Reading Recovery program (18.2%), and time to routinely monitor first grade students progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery (9.1 % not at all, and 72.7% somewhat). Demographic data. All Reading Recovery teachers (100%) reported having at least six years of teaching experience and 31.8% reported at least six years experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. Approximately 85% (86.4%) of Reading Recovery teachers reported having Masters Degree or beyond. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers were Caucasian (72.7%) R R and 13.6% reported their ethnicity as African-American. Open-ended responses. Reading Recovery teachers were asked to respond to three open-ended questions in addition to the 24 items on the questionnaire. Respondents were instructed to list the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program, the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program, and reasons for continuing or discontinuing Reading Recovery at their school. There were 22 Reading Recovery teachers who filled out the questionnaire, and 21 of those also answered the open-ended questions. Many of the Reading Recovery teachers answered in detail. 37 listing multiple responses for each of the questions. The open-ended responses are summarized in Table 5, and a verbatim listing of teacher responses can be found in Appendix E. Of the 21 who listed strong aspects of the Reading Recovery program, the two most popular answers were individualized, one-on-one instruction, 57.1%, and the ability to reach the lowest performing students and bridge the achievement gap for these students, 47.6%. Reading Recovery teaching strategies and components were listed in 19% of the responses, and both the early intervention element and the support from the other teachers were listed in 14.3% of the responses. Respondents were also asked to list what they considered the weakest elements of the Reading Recovery program. Time was a factor in many of the responses with lack of planning time most frequently mentioned at 33.3%. Lack of time to complete the lesson was mentioned in 19.0% of 4 the responses. Teachers' inability to help all the students who need help was also mentioned in 19.0% of the responses. All of the 21 teachers responded positively to the question Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? Why?\"\nand 20 teachers elaborated on their positive response listing reasons for continuing Reading Recovery. The ability of Reading Recovery to help J struggling readers was listed in half of the responses (50.0%), and strong progress and results were mentioned in 40.0% of the responses. The fact that Reading Recovery decreases the number of special education referrals was listed in 15.0% of the responses. There was one respondent who pointed out that although he/she felt Reading Recovery should be continued at the school, there needed to be better implementation to make it effective. Overall, as reflected in the other items on the questionnaire, the open-ended responses were very positive. Reading Recovery teachers appear knowledgeable and committed to their roles as Reading Recovery teachers and believe strongly in the positive impact the program is having at their schools. Based on survey response and comments provided through the open-ended questions. Reading Recovery teachers are able to see a strong impact from the individualized instruction they provide. 38 Table 4 Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ): 2004-2005 N = 22 ______________________________________________ RRTQ Items 1. a 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. I have a thorough understanding of the schools Reading Recovery program. I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/training for implementation of the Reading Recovery program. Our Reading Recovery program has positively impacted student achievemenl Because ot Reading Recovery, Literacy Group interventions occur for students in grades K-3. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers are given sufficient planning time to implement the program. Our school has enough tutors to fully implement its Reading Recovery program. The administration protects the time for daily uninterrupted Reading Recovery tutoring and Literacy Small Group interventions. Because of our Reading Recovery program, parents are more involved in the literacy program of this school. This school has a plan for evaluating aU elements of our Reading Recovery program. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Reading Recovery program. Ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers. Reading Recovery teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constnictive ideas regarding the program. Our Reading Recovery program adequately addresses the requirements of children with special needs. Reading Recovery teachers participate in the special education referral process to provide early literacy intervention. Because of Reading Recovery, teachers in this school spend more time working togethrer to plan instruction and review student progress. Reading Recovery monthly meetings (continuing contact) are effective and useful. Instructional materials (books, assessments, and other resources) needed to implement our Reading Recovery program are readily available. The faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade. The Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts staiidards. Percent Strongly Agree And Agree 100.00 95.45 95.45 95.45 86.36 54.55 59.09 7727 63.64 86.36 100.00 100.00 81.82 7727 86.36 81.82 100.00 100.00 63.64 100.00 1. 3. Percent Neutral 0.00 4.55 0.00 0.00 4.55 9.09 18.18 22.73 18.18 13.64 0.00 0.00 18.18 13.64 9.09 18.18 0.00 0.00 31.82 0.00 4. RRTQ Items To what degree did your school administration support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? To what degree did your school Reading Coach support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? To what degree does the district support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? To what degree did your schedule allow the time to routinely monitor first grade students' progress after they were discontinued from Reading Percent Extensively 86.36 86.36 72.73 18.18 Percent Somewtiat 13.64 4.55 2727 72.73 Percent Disagree and Strongly Disagree 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 36.36 18.18 0.00 13.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.09 4.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 Percent Not at all 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.09 ________Recovery tutoring?________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents. 39Table 4, continued Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ): 2004-2005 N = 22________________________________________ Total Years of Experience in this School Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years Number of Respondents Total Years of Experience in any School Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years ______________Number of Respondents How many years experiences have you had as a Reading Recovery teacher? Less than one year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years ______________Number of Respondents Educational Attainment Bachelor's degree Master's degree Master's plus 20 hrs Education Specialist's Doctoral ______________ Number of Respondents ______________________ Ethnicity/Race Asian or Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaskan Native Black, not of Hispanic origin Hispanic, regardless of race White, not of Hispanic origin Multi-racial / Other Number of Respondents Percent 0.00 36.36 31.82 18.18 9.09 22 Percent 0.00 0.00 18.18 13.64 68.18 22 Percent 0.00 68.18 31.82 0.00 0.00 22 Percent 13.64 36.36 40.91 9.09 0.00 22 Percent 0.00 0.00 13.64 0.00 72.73 9.09 22 NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents. 40 Table 5 Open-Ended Responses on the RRTQ Question Positive Comments 1. What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery Program? 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. Teacher Selection_________________ __________Responses_________________ One-on-one intervention/ Individualized lessons Bridging achievement gap by reaching lowest performing students Reading Recovery teaching strategies and components of instnjction Early intervention Support from other RR teachers Continuing contact with students Professional training and development Addresses both reading and writing Increases students' confidence Frequency Percent 12 10 57.1 47.6 10. Collaboration with classroom teacher 11. Close contact with parents_________ Total Responses N = 21 43 32 221 11 19.0 14.3 14.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 Sample responses  Working one-on-one with an at-risk child. \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_703","title":"\"Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the 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":["2006-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["\"Research Brief: SMART/THRIVE in the 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/703"],"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\nUniversity of Memphis. Center for Research in Educational Policy\nCREP ' Center for Research itt Educational Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy Research Brief The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free\n1-866-670-6147 SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School DistrictII II II CREP ' Caiierftr Research in Educational Policy II II Center for Research in Educational Policy The Unwersity of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Research Brief II SMART/THRIVE in the Little Rock School District II II II II II II January 2006 n II IB Lyle Hull Davis, Ph.D. Ying Huang Center for Research in Educational Policy n John Nunnery, Ph.D. Old Dominion University Gail Weems, Ph.D. University of Arkansas at Little RockII II RESEARCH BRIEF: SMART/THRIVE IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT II II II M M Background SMART and THRIVE are programs designed by two veteran Little Rock School District (LRSD) teachers. In 1999, the programs were implemented in LRSD, designed to serve at-risk students. These programs have been funded in part by the Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement Program and the National Science Foundation. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental pre-algebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I, respectively. The programs intentions/goals are to: a) provide a solid foundation for Algebra, b) encourage mathematical exploration\nc) make mathematics fun\nd) enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics\nand e) create the confidence necessary to pursue higher level mathematics courses. The SMART program meets for two consecutive weeks during the summer. The THRIVE program meets every other Saturday during the Spring semester. SMART uses a co-teaching model with one teacher and one high school student mentor while THRIVE uses a co-teaching model with two certified teachers. Purpose, Plan and Participants M HI ni Purpose This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to: a) examine the extent to which the programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African-American students\nb) provide cumulative evidence of SMART/THRIVE implementation practices and c) document perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as the level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. Research Questions IH IH Seven research questions provided the focus of the evaluation. The primary research question focused on the extent to which SMART/THRIVE programs improved and/or remediated math achievement among African American students. Evaluation questions were\n1. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? IH 2. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? 3. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? IH 4. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? IH 5. 6. IH What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 7. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 1n n Plan n The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. To determine how effectively SMART and THRIVE were meeting the needs of African American students, a cadre of qualitative and quantitative measures were used. II Evaluation Measures II Five measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: standardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. Administration procedures and descriptions of instrumentation are provided below. IB Direct Classroom Observation Measures  School Observation Measure (SOtvf'): Examines frequency of usage of 24 instructional strategies. IB  Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA)-. Provides measurement of the degree of learner engagement in cooperative learning, project-based learning, higher-level questioning, IB experiential/hands-on learning, student independent inquiry/research, student discussion and students as producers of knowledge using technology.  Math Addendum: Rates teachers actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. IB Surveys Student Survey. Collects participant impressions and perceptions regarding the satisfaction, shortcomings, strengths and influence of SMART and THRIVE programs. IB  Parent Survey. Collects parent perceptions and impressions regarding availability (access), influence, transportation and opinions of SMART and THRIVE. IB  Algebra I Teacher Survey. Collects Algebra I teacher perceptions and impressions of influence of program on student performance as well as global awareness and opinions of SMART and THRIVE. IB  SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey. Collects SMARTfTHRIVE teacher perceptions and impressions regarding professional development, influence of technology, influence of program on student performance and overall opinions of the program. Focus Groups II  Student Focus Groups: Collects program participant impressions and perceptions regarding the influence of each program on Algebra I achievement, test scores, and self-confidence about math. Also collects information about SMART and THRIVE program weaknesses, strengths and needs. IB  Mentor Focus Group: Collects high school SMART mentor impressions and perceptions of SMART program strengths, weaknesses, needs, and influence on students. n student Records  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in light of achievement data. Participation rates are reported as well. 2n V student Academic Performance n Math Benchmark Test (2003 - 2004): The Benchmark Test is a state-mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiple-choice and open response items. fl fl End of Course Exams (EOC) 2004-2005: The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterion- referenced test with questions that align with the goals and subject-specific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. fl  ITBS Math Subtests: The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and computation. This test is norm-referenced. fl  SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests: The curriculum-based tests are measures of student ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems, graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. fl Procedure fl fl To examine the quality of teaching and extent to which students were engaged in learning, CREP researchers conducted a series of random observations during the THRIVE program. Targeted observations were conducted in February and March of 2005 using the SOM, Math-addendum, and RSCA instruments. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different days. fl To examine teacher, student, and parent perceptions, surveys and focus groups were designed and lead by CREP researchers. fl To examine effects of SMART and THRIVE on achievement, data from a variety of norm-referenced, criterion-referenced and informal tests were collected. District and state student performance measures were administered in late spring. Historical records of prior student Benchmark performance were collected through the district database. fl Table 1 summarizes the data collection procedure. fl  fl 3d fl Table 1. Data Collection Summary fl Type of Measure Instrument Number Completed/Data Source Total Description fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl Targeted Classroom Observations Surveys Focus Groups Achievement T ests Attendance Data SOM  RSCA Math AdderxJum SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent Algebra I Teacher Student student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group Math Benchmark Test 2003 - 2004 and 2004 -2005 End of Course Exams (Spring, 2005) ITBS Informal curriculumbased measures (specific to SMART/THRIVE) SMART 2004 Atterxiance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 5 19 5 10 SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE 70 SMART/142 THRIVE 21 Participants 2 Participants See Table 2 210 students (88% African American) 143 students (84% African American) *A series of observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During a one hour period, one* RSCA form was completed every 15 minutes. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher surveys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers. THRIVE parent sun/eys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers. Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers. During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental pennission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group inten/iew lasted approximately 45 minutes. Mentors from the SMART 2004 program were contacted by researchers. Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol modified to capture mentor perceptions to conduct an onsite, 45-minute focus group with 2 of the 7 mentors. Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by indeperxJent entities and distributed throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students One observation session was comprised of three rather than four observation segments due to scheduling constraints. 4IB n Participants KM HR The primary context of observations, focus groups and surveys was the 2005 THRIVE program. Additional attendance data were collected from the 2004 SMART program. Survey and focus group responses concerning both programs also were collected. Both programs served students from the following middle schools: Cloverdale, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, Mablevale, Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest. Students from the following high schools were also served: Central, Fair, Hall, McClellan, and Parkview. Table 1 provides a breakdown of students, mentors, teachers and parents who participated in surveys and focus groups. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the student achievement samples. n The sample sizes used for achievement comparisons varied depending upon the availability of achievement data. The following table illustrates the student populations as they relate to comparison or SMART/THRIVE programs. Due to the relative small total number of 8* grade, non-African American students participating in SMART/THRIVE (n=11), eighth grade comparisons were only made for African American students. I Table 2. Description of Subject Pool H s* grade ECX) Comparison 82 Thrive SMART SMARTS THRIVE 15 48 African- American 32 M 9^ grade EOC aggrade ITBS 581 790 NonAfrican- American 150 356 African- American 70 72 NonAfrican- American 14 12 African- American 13 17 NonAfrican- American 0 0 African- American 23 23 NonAfrican- American 3 2 n Findings M Direct Classroom Observation Results Targeted Observations II n 11 Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the five observation sessions revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state-designed Student Learner Expectations (SLE). Team teaching and collaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was observed during the sessions. The Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning during the observation sessions. Teachers were also noted promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instruction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. The RSCA results suggest that the THRIVE program integrated technology into the curriculum. Average or above average implementation (e.g., level of intensity, meaningfulness, quality) was noted for activities associated with higher level thinking strategies, teamwork and independent technology use. Survey Results I Student Survey The overall trend in response types was positive for survey items pertaining to THRIVE and SMART. Regarding THRIVE, students demonstrated high levels of agreement for items probing self-confidence, comfort level, growth related to problem solving skills, and overall satisfaction with the program. Two areas in 5 h H u n which some students showed some disagreement were related to generalization and application. Students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program on the open ended portion of the student survey, but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. Responses to items pertaining to SMART indicated agreement among students for items pertaining to preparedness, motivation, and application. Open-ended items also suggest overall satisfaction with SMART\nhowever, a number of student suggestions were made about changing the time during which the summer program met. Parent Survey H U H Responses from the 35 parents who responded to the THRIVE parent survey suggest that they have positive feelings towards the program. Agreement or strong agreement was consistently noted across all survey items. No negative responses to the items were reported. The 21 SMART parent respondents provided similar information, particularly for those items reflecting their satisfaction with the teachers, their childrens preparedness for Algebra I. and their comfort level with the program meeting time. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Neutral responses were noted for one item pertaining to whether SMART had improved attitudes about math. Parent perceptions measured with analysis of open-ended responses reflected an overall satisfaction with both programs. When asked specifically about transportation, the majority of parents did not cite it as an issue\nhowever, some parents reported access to transportation being inconsistent. Algebra I Teacher Survey  11 Algebra I teachers responses to SMART items showed slightly more varied distribution across the survey scale (Strongly Agree/Agree-Neutral-Strongly Disagree/Disagree-Dont Know). Responses from the 33 Algebra I teachers responding to THRIVE items and the 25 Algebra I teachers responding to SMART items were globally positive. These teachers agreed that both programs had improved students self-confidence and positively impacted student achievement\nhowever, they responded more neutrally to items probing the programs influence on childrens problem solving ability and influence on general Algebra I instruction. When asked specifically about whether they felt SMART and THRIVE had had an impact on achievement differences among races, a small percentage disagreed, approximately one third responded neutrally or did not know, and the remaining 48% agreed. Ml SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey Ml Ml SMART/THRIVE Teachers responses overwhelmingly favored agreement or strong agreement with items pertaining to positive attributes among professional development, resources/materials, methodology and instructional delivery within the THRIVE and SMART programs. Two items for which some teachers responded neutrally were related to the extent to which they felt the program had improved their own ability or their students ability to use calculators. No negative responses were noted among the items\nhowever, some teachers indicated that the limited time available for teaching was considered a shortcoming for both SMART and THRIVE. Focus Groups Ml Student Focus Group  w Students perceptions of both programs suggest that there is a generally positive feeling towards SMART and THRIVE. Specifically, the consensus among the twenty-one students who participated in the focus groups was that SMART and THRIVE bolstered math skills and boosted confidence. Despite some mild distaste for required meeting times (Saturdays and during the summer), most student participants indicated that both SMART and THRIVE had reinforced Algebra I skills and provided a fun. relaxing context for learning. Many students noted that the programs had provided new strategies for problem solving and made Algebra I less daunting. There were no outwardly negative comments made. 6 I Il II Mentor Focus Group II II Two high school student mentors who had participated in SMART, 2004 provided input about the SMART program primarily. The mentors viewed SMART as a preparatory program focused on reviewing prealgebra principles. Both mentors, however, also noted that SMART provided a unique environment in which competition helped motivate students and make math more enjoyable. The mentors global perception of the program was that SMART allowed students to get a head start on Algebra 1 principles with a simultaneous boost in confidence. II Attendance II II Collectively, the 2004 SMART program served 210 students for which attendance data were available and the 2005 THRIVE program served 143 students for which data were available. Compared to the general population served by the district (69.0% African American), SMART and Thrive programs served a higher percentage of African American students (88.0% SMART\n84.8% Thrive\n89.6% Both). The attendance rates for SMART yielded an average rate of 97% (range: 94%-100%) and the attendance rates for Thrive yielded an average rate of 90% (range\n81%-100%). Achievement I II II The results provide evidence that, in 9** grade, the SMART program, the Thrive program, or the combination of the two programs were associated with substantial improvements in the achievement on the Algebra I EOC exam. The strongest evidence was noted among students who participated in both programs. Eighth grade students participating in any combination of the programs were less likely than their non-parficipant peers to perform at basic or below basic proficiency levels on the Algebra I EOC exam. More specifically, African American students in both eighth and ninth grade who were enrolled in any of the three program configurations were more likely to perform at proficient or advanced levels of proficiency than the nonparticipant comparison group. Gains were also noted on the program-specific assessments for the SMART and Thrive programs. No significant differences between comparison and SMART/THRIVE students nor racial differences were noted among scores from the ITBS. n Conclusions n Each of the major research questions will provide a framework around which the conclusions for the present study will be structured. II Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? n Student-level achievement analyses show that participation in SMART. Thrive and a combination of programs is associated with improvements in achievement when compared to non-participating students. Specifically, our interpretation of these outcomes focuses on the extent to which these differences in achievement relate to growth among African American students. II n Findings suggest that participation in any of the program configurations was associated with a major reduction in the achievement gap between African American students and students of other races, from a one standard deviation deficit on 2003-04 Benchmark scores to virtually no difference on 2004-5 Algebra I EOC scores. For 2004-05 S' graders, the results suggest a positive effect of the programAfrican American students attending any program configuration were more likely to achieve at Proficient or Advanced levels than peers who did not attend. Although results were favorable for African American students enrolled in both programs, no statistically significant effects were noted from ITBS scores for race or program, demonstrating that although SMART and Thrive have a direct and significant impact on curriculum-based performance measures, they have a lesser influence on standardized, norm-referenced math achievement performance. In light of the current goal in increasing achievement among African American students, particularly in the domain of mathematics, the results from EOC and Benchmark exams are highly important. These results 7 are encouraging as implementation of the SMART and THRIVE programs seems to have had a positive impact on African American student achievement. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Il a Overall, the level of participation for both programs was high. The majority of students enrolled in SMART, THRIVE or both programs missed no sessions, yielding average attendance rates of 90% or above. Additionally, data from classroom observations suggested a high degree of student engagement and participation across classrooms within the THRIVE program. Given the demographic characteristics of the participants, the significant quantitative relationship between participation and student achievement gains, and the high participation rates among participants, the results provide evidence that SMART and THRIVE have a positive impact on participation among African American students and that participation has had significant influence on achievement. II What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? If During classroom visits, the majority of observed instructional strategies were couched in a collaborative teaching model focused on higher level thinking skills and student grouping. Students were observed utilizing technology throughout their lessons and were highly engaged during observation sessions. Teachers frequently posed hypothetical questions to groups to accommodate use of higher-level thinking skills and generate more varied student responses. Even when students were engaged in independent seatwork, which was rare, teachers were observed circulating among various student groups, requesting more in-depth questioning strategies in their problem solving approaches. Additionally, students were frequently observed encouraging fellow students in preparation for competition while working in collaborative groups. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? M U U SMARTfTHRIVE teachers responded positively to survey items for both programs. Teachers generally believed that the core components of both programs supported student learning, particularly among students who were struggling to perform well in Algebra I classes. Additionally, they reported feeling comfortable with expectations and resources, noting that having opportunities to collaborate with other teachers and utilize competition to motivate students were essential to success. Teachers cited time constraints as a recognized weakness across both programs. The general consensus was that they wanted more time to develop deeper skills among students and to reinforce concepts taught in Algebra I classrooms. None of the respondents expressed feelings of dissatisfaction with either program and demonstrated the highest percentage of positive responses when compared to other groups (students, parents, Algebra I teachers). What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? ai Algebra I teachers were generally positive in their reaction to both SMART and THRIVE programs, representative of an overall feeling that SMART and THRIVE facilitated student learning and generalized to the K Algebra 1 classroom. Algebra I teachers noted observed improvements among students participating in SMART/THRIVE and globally agreed that the programs effectively enabled students to use technology in the Algebra I classrooms. A number of Algebra I teachers indicated that both programs needed to reach a larger and broader group of students. There were no indications that Algebra I teachers disliked SMART or THRIVE\nhowever, there was some evidence that some respondents felt that the programs did more to supplement what was being taught in Algebra I classrooms than cultivate more meaningful understanding of algebraic concepts. I 8 h sa am What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? n Students were somewhat mixed in their reactions to SMART and THRIVE, although they were generally positive. While most of the students believed that SMART and/or THRIVE helped them with Algebra I class, others indicated mild dislike for time spent doing academics during summer and/or Saturdays. Students perceived the programs as motivating, fun, and globally helpful. It was rewarding to note that despite some dislike of the programs scheduled meeting times, most students indicated a desire to continue with the programs modifying very little about the actual instructional delivery. These comments were corroborated by comments students made during focus group sessions. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? n Parents' reactions to both programs were globally positive. Specifically, parents commented that the motivational, fun nature of the programs was fostering an interest in math among students. H M M The change that parents requested most was that the program be expanded both in breath/scope and duration. None of the parents cited negative features\nhowever, some parents requested more rigor within the curriculum. When asked specifically about transportation, a concern of SMART/THRIVE program heads, the majority (84%) of parents indicated that it was not a problem. Of the parents who did indicate that transportation was a problem, inconsistency of service was cited as the primary issue. The majority of parents felt comfortable sending their children to the programs during the summer and/or on Saturdays, particularly because transportation on those days/during that time did not conflict with work or other activities that typically dominated school days. II Compliance Remedy Questions Recommendations M n A series of recommendations have been designed to provide guidance for future implementation of SMART and THRIVE programs. The recommendations primarily focus upon two broad areas in which the Little Rock School District could take additional action to ensure proper implementation of SMART/THRIVE as they relate to academic improvement among African American children: 1. Expansion 2. Accountability n Program Expansion II M  A recurring theme among surveys collected during this evaluation related to a general desire to expand both programs. Specifically, teachers and parents generally called to extend the duration and frequency of the programs as well as expand the programs to meet the needs of larger and broader groups of students. Before expanding the frequency and duration of each program, the district would be well-served to explore effective ways to recruit students and teachers to expand the programs.  An expanded program would have to include more SMART/THRIVE teachers directly proportionate to the number of students added to the program. The success of the program is in part dependent upon the amount of flexibility afforded to each teaching team as well as the ratio of teachers to students. If more students are added without adding more teachers, the design of the SMART/THRIVE model will be compromised. u  Given the unique cooperative teaching model used in the program, pre-program professional development and staff training of new SMART/THRIVE teachers would be paramount to successful expansion. Specific focus on technology use and development of higher level 9 b a If If thinking skills would help further develop the current model. Additionally, the level of problem solving and critical thinking used in SMART/THRIVE classrooms would require new SMART/THRIVE teachers to receive training aimed at fostering these skills in the context of Algebra. Current and new SMART/THRIVE teachers would benefit from professional development aimed at applying algebraic concepts in authentic contexts (i.e.. real world application) and/or simulations. If If If  Currently, THRIVE meets every other week during the Spring semester. The district should consider expanding the number of participating students and teachers by using alternating Saturdays to accommodate the same numbers of students per THRIVE session rather than simply making each session bigger. For example, if the district were to add 100 additional THRIVE students and proportional numbers of teachers, they would be less likely to disrupt the current model by creating two groups of THRIVE students meeting on different Saturdays during each month. The numbers, therefore would remain more manageable and the staff more effective in delivering instruction and fostering learning rather than discipline during competition and class time. SMART could potentially integrate two, two-week summer sessions to serve more students. al If If  In light of budgetary constraints, the prospects of expanding SMART/THRIVE programs could be limited potentially\nhowever, LRSD should examine alternative funding opportunities to bolster prospects for expansion. The following list, although not exhaustive, provides examples of alternative funding sources that potentially match the goals and purposes of SMART/THRIVE: American Society of Engineering Education, The National Science Foundation, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, the Spencer Foundation and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Some grant opportunities could foster potential secondary opportunities for qualified African American students to participate in further research and competition. The purpose in seeking these grants is bifurcate in nature: to obtain funding for expansion\nto explore further opportunities aimed at enriching mathematics and fostering motivation among African American children If If  Transportation costs and availability must be considered if the programs are expanded. Although evidence of negative experiences with transportation was minimal among respondents within the 2004-2005 subject pool, the district will need to determine the extent to which access to transportation limits participation. Appropriate measures should be taken during recruitment to disclose availability of transportation and ensure that availability is viable. II Accountability II  Attendance rates among SMART and THRIVE participants were extraordinarily high\nhowever, for the purposes of longitudinal studies, it would be instrumental to follow participants through graduation to examine longitudinal effects of the programs on math achievement. Future studies might examine indepth analyses of participants to determine what factors impacted their achievement significantly. n  Additional data such as graduation rates, enrollment in advanced math courses and school attendance should be examined longitudinally once students complete SMART and THRIVE programs. A Efforts to recruit former SMART/THRIVE students as high school mentors should be made to foster continuity within the program and make students gainfully aware of future effects. n  Future comparisons of SMART/THRIVE students should continue to disaggregate assessment results by race and ethnicity to effectively examine the progress of African American students in SMART/THRIVE relative to their peers. A 10 I 0 a II  Given the limited research on proven programs, intensification on research of this program through long-term studies is recommended. If positive. SMART/THRIVE may have potential to serve as a leader in developing effective Algebra programs for African American children. Expectations of Program Modifications II II II Findings from the recent evaluation were globally positive. In light of these findings, SMART/THRIVE has value in raising student achievement among African American students in LRSD. With regard to change in the instructional design of the programs, little guidance is provided and change is not recommended. However, future modifications would include programmatic expansion to serve a larger, broader group of students. Offerings to African American students should remain paramount. Additionally, given the limited amount of research on successful programs with at-risk populations across the country, further, more intensive research of SMART/THRIVE programs would provide the district not only with a model that can be easily replicated, but also information about factors that set SMART/THRIVE apart from classroom Algebra and pre- Algebra classes. Finally, the district will need to examine the sustained achievement, retention and Il coursework decisions of SMART/THRIVE participants to determine whether the growth noted among participants during the program is sustainable. I II n II II I II II n I 11 a 11 M CREP ' CtHter for Reteareh in Educational foUcy n Center for Research in Educational Policy Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE a The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-86\u0026amp;67\u0026amp;6147 In the Little Rock School District a TECHNICAL REPORT a a a CREP Ce/iU/ for Research in E^ueaiional Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free\n1-866-670-6147 Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District TECHNICAL REPORT January 2006 Lyle Hull Davis, Ph.D. Ying Huang Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery, Ph.D. Old Dominion University Gail Weems, Ph.D. University of Arkansas at Little Rockp EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background SMART and THRIVE are programs designed by two, veteran LRSD teachers. In 1999, the programs were implemented in LRSD, designed to serve at-risk students. These programs have been funded in part by the Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement Program and the National Science Foundation. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental pre-algebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I, respectively. The programs intentions/goals are to: a) provide a solid foundation for Algebra, b) encourage exploration\nc) make mathematics fun\nd) enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics\nand e) create the confidence necessary to pursue higher level courses. The SMART program meets for two consecutive weeks during the summer. The THRIVE program meets every other Saturday during the Spring semester. SMART uses a co-teaching model with one teacher and one high school student mentor while THRIVE uses a co-teaching model with two certified teachers. Purpose, Plan and Participants Purpose This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to: a) provide cumulative evidence of SMART/THRIVE implementation practices\nb) examine the extent to which the programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African-American students\nand c) explore perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. Research Questions Seven research questions provided the focus of the evaluation. The primary research question focused on the extent to w4iich SMART/THRIVE programs improved and/or remediated math achievement among African American students. Evaluation questions were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 1Plan The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. To determine how effectively SMART and THRIVE were effectively meeting the needs of African American students, a cadre of qualitative and quantitative measures were used. Evaluation Measures Six measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: standardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. Administration procedures and descriptions of instrumentation are provided below. Direct Classroom Observation Measures  School Observation Measure (SOM^)'. Examines frequency of usage of 26 instructional strategies.  Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA)'. Provides measurement of the degree of learner engagement in cooperative learning, project-based learning, higher-level questioning. experiential/hands-on learning, student independent inquiry/research, student discussion and students as producers of knowledge.  Math Addendum'. Rates teachers actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. Surveys  Student Survey. Collects participant impressions and perceptions regarding the satisfaction, shortcomings, strengths and influence of SMART and THRIVE programs.  Parent Survey. Collects parent perceptions and impressions regarding availability (access), influence, transportation and opinions of SMART and THRIVE.  Algebra I Teacher Survey. Collects Algebra I teacher perceptions and impressions of influence of program on student performance as well as global awareness and opinions of SMART and THRIVE.  SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey. Collects THRIVE teacher perceptions and impressions regarding professional development, influence of technology, influence of program on student performance and overall opinions of the program. Focus Groups  Student Focus Groups: Collects program participant impressions and perceptions regarding the influence of each program on Algebra I achievement, test scores, and self-confidence about math. Also collects information about SMART and THRIVE program weaknesses, strengths and needs.  Mentor Focus Group: Collects high school SMART mentor impressions and perceptions of SMART program strengths, weaknesses, needs, and influence on students. Student Records  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in light of achievement data. Participation rates are reported as well. Student Academic Performance  Math Benchmark Test (2003 - 2004) scores were analyzed. The Benchmark Test is a state- mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiplechoice and open response items. 2if  End of Course Exams (EOC) 2004-2005 scores were analyzed. The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterion-referenced test with questions that align with the goals and subject-specific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic.  ITBS Math Subtests scores were analyzed. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and computation. This test is norm-referenced.  SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests: The curriculum-based tests are measures of student ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems, graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. Procedure To examine the quality of teaching and extent to which students were engaged in learning, CREP researchers conducted a series of random observations during the THRIVE program. Targeted observations were conducted in February and March of 2005 using the SOM, Math-addendum, and RSCA instruments. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different days. To examine teacher, student, and parent perceptions, surveys and focus groups were designed and lead by CREP researchers. To examine effects of SMART and THRIVE on achievement, data from a variety of normed, criterion-referenced and informal tests were collected. District and state student performance measures were administered in late spring. Historical records of prior student Benchmark performance were collected through the district database. Table 1 summarizes the data collection procedure. i 3 I 0 a Table 1. Data Collection Summary I Type of Measure Targeted Classroom Observations SOM Instrument TC---------------------- Number Completed/Data Source Total fl RSCA Math Addendum 5 19 5 Description A series of observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During a one hour period, four* note forms were completed every 15 minutes. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Surveys SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent Algebra I Teacher Student 10 SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE 70 SMART/142 THRIVE Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher surveys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers THRIVE parent surveys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers. Focus Groups Student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group 21 Participants 2 Participants During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. Mentors from the SMART 2004 program were contacted by researchers. Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol to conduct an on-site, 45-minute focus group with 2 of the 7 mentors. Achievem ent T ests Math Benchmark Test 2003-2004 and 2004 -2005 End of Course Exams ITBS See Table 2 Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by independent entities and distribute throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Exams were taken during the Spring of 2005. Attendance Data SMART 2004 Attendance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 210 students (88% African American) 143 students (84% African American) Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students i H *One observation session was comprised of three rather than four observation segments due to scheduiing constraints. Participants The primary context of observations, focus groups and surveys was the 2005 THRIVE program. Additional attendance data were collected from the 2004 SMART program. Survey and focus group responses concerning both programs also were collected. Both programs served students from the following middle schools: Cloverdale, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, Mablevale, Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest. Students from the following high schools were also served: Central, Fair, Hall, McClellan, and Parkview. Table 1 provides a breakdown of students, mentors, teachers and parents who participated surveys and focus groups. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the student achievement samples. in The sample sizes used for achievement comparisons varied depending upon the availability achievement data. The following table illustrates the student populations as they relate to comparison of or 4- I SMART/THRIVE programs. Due to the relative small total number of 8* grade, non-African American students participating in SMART/THRIVE (n=11), eighth grade comparisons were only made for African American students. Table 2. Student Populations 8'*' grade EOC 9\" grade EOC S'\" grade ITBS Findings Comparison 82 African- American 581 790 NonAfrican- American 150 356 Thrive SMART SMART \u0026amp; THRIVE 15 48 32 African- American 70 72 NonAfrican- American 14 12 African- American 13 17 NonAfrican- American 0 0 African- American 23 23 NonAfrican- American 3 2 Direct Classroom Observation Results Targeted Observations Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the five observation sessions revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state-designed Student Learner Expectations (SLE). The most striking result was the extent to which team teaching and collaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was noted among observed sessions. The Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning during the observation sessions. Teachers were also noted promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instruction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. The RSCA results suggest that the THRIVE program integrated technology into the curriculum. Average or above average implementation (e.g., level of intensity, meaningfulness, quality) was noted for activities associated with higher level thinking strategies, teamwork and independent technology use. Survey Results Student Survey The overall trend in response types was positive for survey items pertaining to THRIVE and SMART. Regarding THRIVE, students demonstrated high levels of agreement for items probing setf-confidence, comfort level, growth among problem solving skills, and overall satisfaction with the program. Two areas in which some students showed some disagreement were related to generalization and application. Students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program on the open ended portion of the student survey, but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. Responses to items pertaining to SMART indicated agreement among students for items pertaining to preparedness, motivation, and application. Open-ended items also suggest overall satisfaction with SMART\nhowever, a number of student suggestions were made about changing the time during which the summer program met. Parent Survey Responses from the 35 parents who responded to the THRIVE parent survey suggest that they have positive feelings towards the program. Agreement or strong agreement was consistently noted across ail survey items. No negative responses to the items were reported. The 21 parent respondents provided 5 I at similar information, particularly for those items reflecting their satisfaction with the teachers, their childrens preparedness for Algebra I, and their comfort level with the program meeting time. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Neutral responses were noted for one item pertaining to whether SMART had improved attitudes about math. Parent perceptions measured with analysis of open-ended responses reflected an overall satisfaction with both programs. When asked specifically about transportation, the majority of parents did not cite it as an issue\nhowever, some parents reported access to transportation being inconsistent. Algebra I Teacher Survey I n I Algebra I teachers responses to SMART items showed slightly more varied distribution across the survey scale (Strongly Agree/Agree-Neutral-Strongly Disagree/Disagree-Dont Know). Responses from the 33 Algebra I teachers responding to THRIVE items and the 25 Algebra I teachers responding to SMART items were positive. These teachers agreed that both programs had improved students self-confidence and positively impacted student achievement\nhowever, they responded more neutrally to items probing the programs influence on childrens problem solving ability and influence on general Algebra I instruction. When asked specifically about whether they felt SMART and THRIVE had had an impact on achievement differences among races, a small percentage disagreed, approximately one third responded neutrally or did not know, and the remaining 48% agreed. SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey SMART/THRIVE Teachers responses overwhelmingly favored agreement or strong agreement with items pertaining to positive attributes among professional development, resources/materials, methodology and instructional delivery within the THRIVE and SMART programs. Two items for which some teachers responded neutrally were related to the extent to which they felt the program had improved their own ability or their students ability to use calculators. No negative responses were noted among the items\nhowever, some teachers indicated that the limited time available for teaching was considered a shortcoming for both SMART and THRIVE.  Focus Groups student Focus Group Students perceptions of both programs suggest that there is a generally positive feeling towards SMART and THRIVE. Specifically, the consensus among the twenty-one students who participated in the focus groups was that SMART and THRIVE bolstered math skills and boosted confidence. Despite some mild distaste for required meeting times (Saturdays and during the summer), most student participants indicated that both SMART and THRIVE had reinforced Algebra I skills and provided a fun, relaxing context for learning. Many students noted that the programs had provided new strategies for problem solving and made Algebra I less daunting. There were no outwardly negative comments made. Mentor Focus Group Two high school student mentors who had participated in SMART, 2004 provided input about the SMART program primarily. The mentors viewed SMART as a preparatory program focused on reviewing pre-algebra principles. Both mentors, however, also noted that SMART provided a unique environment in which competition helped motivate students and make math more enjoyable. The mentors global perception of the program was that SMART allowed students to get a head start on Algebra I principals with a simultaneous boost in confidence. Attendance Collectively, the 2004 SMART program served 210 students for which attendance data was available and the 2005 THRIVE program served 143 students for which data was available. Compared to the general population served by the district (69.0% African American), SMART and Thrive programs served a higher 6percentage of African American students (88.0% SMART\n84.8% Thrive\n89.6% Both). The attendance rates for SMART yielded an average rate of 97% (range: 94%-100%) and the attendance rates for Thrive yielded an average rate of 90% (range: 81%-100%). Achievement The results provide evidence that, in 9* grade, the SMART program, the Thrive program, or the combination of the two programs were associated with substantial improvements in the achievement on the Algebra I EOC exam. The strongest evidence was noted among students who participated in both programs. Eighth grade students participating in any combination of the programs were less likely than their nonparticipant peers to perform at basic or below basic proficiency levels on the Algebra I EOC exam. More specifically. African American students in both eighth and ninth grade who were enrolled in any of the three program configurations were more likely to perform at proficient or advanced levels of proficiency than the non-participant comparison group. Gains were also noted on the program-specific assessments for the SMART and Thrive programs. No significant differences between comparison and SMART/THRIVE students nor racial differences were noted among scores from the ITBS. I Conclusions Each of the major research questions will provide a framework around which the conclusions for the present study will be structured. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Student-level achievement analyses show that participation in SMART. Thrive and a combination of programs is associated with comparative improvements in achievement when compared to non-participating students. Specifically, our interpretation of these outcomes focuses on the extent to which these differences in achievement relate to growth among African American students. II Findings suggest that participation in any of the program configurations was associated with a major reduction in the achievement gap between African American students and students of other races, from a one standard deviation deficit on 2003-04 Benchmark scores to virtually no difference on 2004-5 Algebra I EOC scores. For 2004-05 8** graders, the results suggest a positive effect of the program^African American students attending any program configuration were more likely to achieve at Proficient or Advanced levels than peers who did not attend. Since 8* graders do not comprise the majority of SMART/THRIVE participants, further analysis of these students sustained achievement would be interesting. Although results were favorable for African American students enrolled in both programs, no statistically significant effects were noted from ITBS scores for race or program, demonstrating that although SMART and Thrive have a direct and significant impact on curriculum-based performance measures, they have a lesser influence on standardized, norm-referenced math achievement performance. fl In light of the current goal in increasing achievement among African American students, particularly in the domain of mathematics, the results from EOC and Benchmark exams are highly significant. These results are encouraging as implementation of the SMART and Thrive programs seems to have had a positive impact on African American student achievement. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Overall, the level of participation for both programs was high. The majority of students enrolled in SMART. Thrive or both programs missed no sessions, yielding average attendance rates of 90% or above. Additionally, data from classroom observations suggested a high degree of student engagement and participation across classrooms within the Thrive program. Given the demographic characteristics of the participants, the significant quantitative relationship between participation and student achievement gains, and the high participation rates among participants, the results provide evidence that SMART and Thrive 79 have a positive impact on participation among African American students and that participation has had significant influence on achievement. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? n During classroom visits, the majority of observed instructional strategies were couched in a collaborative teaching model focused on higher level thinking skills and student grouping. Students were observed utilizing technology throughout their lessons and were highly engaged during observation sessions. Teachers frequently posed hypothetical questions to groups to accommodate use of higher-level thinking skills and generate more varied student responses. Even when students were engaged in independent seatwork, which was rare, teachers were observed circulating among various student groups, requesting more in-depth questioning strategies in their problem solving approaches. Additionally, students were frequently cited encouraging fellow students in preparation for competition while working in collaborative groups. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? SMART/THRIVE teachers responded positively to survey items for both programs. Teachers generally believed that the core components of both programs supported student learning, particularly among students who were struggling to perform well in Algebra I classes. Additionally, they reported feeling comfortable with expectations and resources, noting that having opportunities to collaborate with other teachers and utilize competition to motivate students were essential to success. Teachers cited time constraints as a recognized weakness across both programs. The general consensus was that they wanted more time to develop deeper skills among students and to reinforce concepts taught in Algebra I classrooms. None of the respondents expressed feelings of dissatisfaction with either program and demonstrated the highest percentage of positive responses when compared to other groups (students, parents. Algebra I teachers). What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Algebra I teachers were generally positive in their reaction to both SMART and THRIVE programs, representative of an overall feeling that SMART and THRIVE facilitated student learning and generalized to the Algebra I classroom. Algebra I teachers noted observed improvements among students participating in SMART/THRIVE and globally agreed that the programs effectively enabled students to use technology in the Algebra 1 classrooms. A number of Algebra I teachers indicated that both programs needed to reach a larger and broader group of students. There were no indications that Algebra I teachers disliked SMART or THRIVE\nhowever, there was some evidence that some respondents felt that the programs did more to supplement what was being taught in Algebra I classrooms than cultivate more meaningful understanding of algebraic concepts. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Students were somewhat mixed in their reactions to SMART and THRIVE, although they were generally positive. While most of the students believed that SMART and/or THRIVE helped them with Algebra I class, others indicated mild dislike for time spent doing academics during summer and/or Saturdays. Students perceived the programs as motivating, fun, and globally helpful. It was rewarding to note that despite some dislike of the programs scheduled meeting times, most students indicated a desire to continue with the programs modifying very little about the actual instructional delivery. These comments were corroborated by comments students made during focus group sessions. 8What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents reactions to both programs were globally positive. Specifically, parents commented that the motivational, fun nature of the programs was fostering an interest in math among students. The change that parents requested most was that the program be expanded both in breath/scope and duration. None of the parents cited negative features\nhowever, some parents requested more rigor within the curriculum. When asked specifically about transportation, a concern of SMART/THRIVE program heads, the majority (84%) of parents indicated that it was not a problem. Of the parents who did indicate that transportation was a problem, inconsistency of service was cited as the primary issue. The majority of parents felt comfortable sending their children to the programs during the summer and/or on Saturdays, particularly because transportation on those days/during that time did not conflict with work or other activities that typically dominated school days. Compliance Remedy Questions Recommendations A series of recommendations have been designed to provide guidance for future implementation of SMART and THRIVE programs. The recommendations primarily focus upon two broad areas in which the Little Rock School District could take additional action to ensure proper implementation of SMART/THRIVE as they relate to academic improvement among African American children: 1. Expansion 2. Accountability Program Expansion A recurring theme among surveys collected during this evaluation related to a general desire to expand both programs. Specifically, teachers and parents generally called to extend the duration and frequency of the programs as well as expand the programs to meet the needs of larger and broader groups of students. Before expanding the frequency and duration of each program, the district would be well- served to explore effective ways to recruit students and teachers to expand the programs.  An expanded program would have to include more SMART/THRIVE teachers directly proportionate to the number of students added to the program. The success of the program is in part dependent upon the amount of flexibility afforded to each teaching team as well as the ratio of teachers to students. If more students are added without adding more teachers, the design of the SMART/THRIVE model will be compromised. Given the unique cooperative teaching model used in the program, pre-program professional development and staff training of new SMART/THRIVE teachers would be paramount to successful expansion. Specific focus on technology use and development of higher level thinking skills would help further develop the current model. Additionally, the level of problem solving and critical thinking used in SMART/THRIVE classrooms would require new SMART/THRIVE teachers to receive training aimed at fostering these skills in the context of Algebra. Current and new SMART/THRIVE teachers would benefit from professional development aimed at applying algebraic concepts in authentic contexts (i.e., real world\" application) and/or simulations.  Currently, THRIVE meets every other week during Spring semester. The district would be well- advised to expand the number of participating students and teachers by using alternating Saturdays to accommodate the same numbers of students per THRIVE session rather than simply making each session bigger. For example, if the district were to add 100 additional 9THRIVE students and proportional numbers of teachers, they would be less likely to disrupt the current model by creating two groups of THRIVE students meeting on different Saturdays during each month. The numbers, therefore would remain more manageable and the staff more effective in delivering instruction and fostering learning rather than discipline during competition and class time. SMART could potentially integrate two, two-week summer sessions to serve more students. In light of budgetary constraints, the prospects of expanding SMART/THRIVE programs could be limited potentially\nhowever, LRSD should examine alternative funding opportunities to bolster prospects for expansion. The following list, although not exhaustive, provides examples of alternative funding sources that potentially match the goals and purposes of SMART/THRIVE: American Society of Engineering Education. The National Science Foundation. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, the Spencer Foundation and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Some grant opportunities could foster potential secondary opportunities for qualified African American students to participant in further research and competition. The purpose in seeking these grants is bifurcate in nature: to obtain funding for expansion\nto explore further opportunities aimed at enriching mathematics and fostering motivation among African American children Transportation costs and availability must be considered if the programs are expanded. Although evidence of negative experiences with transportation was minimal among respondents within the 2004-2005 subject pool, the district will need to determine the extent to which access to transportation limits participation. Appropriate measures should be taken during recruitment to disclose availability of transportation and ensure that availability is viable. Accountability  Attendance rates among SMART and THRIVE participants were extraordinarily high\nhowever, for the purposes of tracking, it would be instrumental to follow past participants to examine longitudinal effects of the programs on math achievement. Future studies might examine in-depth analyses of participants to determine what factors impacted their achievement significantly. Additional data such as graduation rates, enrollment in advanced math courses and school attendance should be examined longitudinally once students complete SMART and THRIVE programs. Efforts to recruit former SMARTfTHRIVE students as high school mentors should be made to foster continuity within the program and make students gainfully aware of future effects. Future comparisons of SMART/THRIVE students should continue to disaggregate assessment results by race and ethnicity to effectively examine the progress of African American students in SMART/THRIVE relative to their peers. Given the limited research on proven programs, instensification on research of this program through long-term studies is recommended. If positive, SMART/THRIVE may have potential to serve as a leader in developing effective Algebra programs for African American children in failing schools. Expectations of Program Modifications Findings from the recent evaluation were globally positive. In light of these findings. SMART/THRIVE has value in raising student achievement among African American students in LRSD. With regard to change in the instructional design of the programs, little guidance is provided and change is not recommended. However, future modifications would include programmatic expansion to serve a larger, broader group of students. Offerings to African American students should remain paramount. Additionally, given the limited amount of research on successful programs in failing schools across the country, further, more intensive research of SMART/THRIVE programs would provide the district not only with a model that can be easily 10replicated, but also information about factors that set SMART/THRIVE apart from classroom Algebra and preAlgebra classes. Finally, the district will need to examine the sustained achievement, retention and coursework decisions of SMART/THRIVE participants to determine whether the growth noted among participants during the program is sustainable. 11Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District Research Report: 2004-2005 INTRODUCTION The Little Rock School District contracted with the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) 'J at The University of Memphis to collect formative evaluation data in schools implementing SMART/THRIVE. This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to examine the extent to which the SMART/THRIVE programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African American students. Additionally, the evaluation explores perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental pre-algebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I. It was designed as an intervention for rising and current S- and 9*'-grade students who are entering or will be enrolled in Algebra I. Applications for SMART are disseminated through the Sth grade teachers for any rising 9th grade student who has not taken Algebra I. Eligible rising 9th grade students who are registered to attend high school in the LRSD and will take algebra are selected on a first come-first served basis. Seventh-grade math teachers are asked to recommend students, particularly African American or Hispanic students, who have the potential to be successful in Algebra I in the Sth grade. Students who participated in SMART are invited to participate in THRIVE. After a designated enrollment period, remaining seats are opened to any student taking Algebra I. Applications for these remaining seats are disseminated by the Algebra 1 teachers. The programs intentions/goals are to: Provide a solid foundation for algebra, encourage exploration Make mathematics fun Enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics Create the confidence necessary to pursue higher-level math courses The goals encompass two components: pre-algebra instruction for two weeks during the summer (SMART Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year (THRIVE Program). Instruction in both 12programs utilizes small class sizes (fewer than 18) with two teachers per class. Each program currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total African American student population enrolled in Algebra I classes. Various local grants have funded both programs since 1999. Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training (SMART) provides opportunities for students to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed for success in Algebra 1. SMART is a two-week half-day summer institute for eligible rising S' and 9* grade students who will be enrolled in Algebra 1. SMART serves approximately 200 students each year. Each SMART classroom consists of a qualified mathematics teacher. one high school mentor who demonstrates outstanding mathematical skills and a positive attitude, and no more than seventeen SMART students. Each teacher uses a variety of strategies and tools to enhance their instructional delivery. Activities include real-life situations requiring the use of math skills. SMART students are exposed to and become familiar with a range of technological tools. The most popular tool used is the Tl- 84 Plus graphing calculator. SMART students learn how to use the calculator to further and deepen their knowledge of mathematics. In addition to the TI-84 Plus calculator, students use the Calculator-Based Laboratory (CBL) and the Calculator-Based Ranger (CBR) to solve problems and perform experiments. Students who successfully complete the SMART program receive a free TI-84 Plus graphing calculator, a SMART T-shirt, and a certificate. Instructional delivery and structure within the THRIVE program is virtually identical to that noted within SMART sessions\nhowever, students do not have a high school mentor acting as a facilitator. THRIVE serves approximately 150 students, many of whom generally have been enrolled in SMART during the previous summer. Students currently enrolled in Algebra I meet bi-monthly on Saturdays during the spring semester from 8:45 a.m. - 12:25 p.m. The sessions are divided into 45-minute instructional blocks with learning activities prescribed for each block. The last block consists of two classes competing in a mathematics game/competition featuring the material covered that day. Teaching methods mirror those used in SMART, but integrate more advanced content and focus on material covered in Algebra I classrooms across the district. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Seven research questions provided the structure around which the evaluation was developed. The primary research question focused on the extent to which SMARTfTHRIVE programs improved and/or 13remediated math achievement among African American students. A substantive supplemental question addressed the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students. Additional attention was focused upon academically focused time and student engagement as well as parent, student, teacher and Algebra I teacher perceptions of the programs. The questions are listed below and are followed by a brief explanation of the areas addressed in the present evaluation. PRIMARY EVALUATION QUESTION Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? A treatment-control student pre-test/post-test designed was employed for this evaluation. The analysis controlled for pretest, ethnicity and population free lunch status. Four types of Algebra I students were compared: a) no program/comparison, b) SMART program only, c) THRIVE program only and d) both SMART and THRIVE programs. The pretest data was collected from the 2003-2004 Math Benchmark Test and the posttest data was collected from the 2004-2005 Math Benchmark Test. Additional test information gathered for treatment-control comparison includes the 2004-2005 ITBS Math subtests and Algebra I End of Course Exams (EOC). Descriptive data from SMART and THRIVE participants were derived from pre- and post-test program exams. All standardized tests were administered by and throughout the Little Rock School District. Pre- and post- test program exams were administered through SMART and/or THRIVE and should be considered supplemental. SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Attendance data from the SMART program of 2004 and the THRIVE program of 2005 were examined. In addition to descriptive information, the levels of participation were analyzed in light of student achievement. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? This question was addressed through classroom observations using an instrument focused on 26 research-based teaching strategies associated with increased academically focused instructional time and technology use within the classroom. Three additional math-specific items were designed to gather 14observation data about math-specific instructional practice. Five random observation visits were conducted during the THRIVE program sessions. 3. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 were addressed through use of self-report surveys, including objective and open-ended items. Demographic data was also collected and analyzed. In addition, three student focus groups were created during which students perceptions of program strengths\nweaknesses and overall satisfaction were collected, and then analyzed. PARTICIPANTS Currently, SMART/THRIVE serves students from the following eight Little Rock School District middle schools: Cloverdale: 82% African American student population\nDunbar: 61% African American student population\nForest Heights: 77% African American student population\nHenderson: 82% African American student population\nMablevale: 81% African American student population\nMann: 52% African American student population\nPulaski Heights: 57% African American student population\nSouthwest: 94% African American student population. Students from the following high schools also were sen/ed: Central: 51 %, Fair: 81%, Hall: 75%, McClellan: 91%, and Parkview: 51%. Of 274 eighth- and ninth-grade students who participated in SMART, THRIVE, or both programs, matching district demographic data were available for 258 (94.2%). Tables 1 and 2 provide summaries of demographic and grade-level data for the various subsamples of SMART, THRIVE, and Comparison students in the study. These programs served a higher percentage of African American students than existed in the student population at large (69.0%): 88.0% of SMART students. 84.8% of THRIVE students, and 89.6% of students attending both programs were African American. Of the 258 students with matching data, 125 attended SMART only, 66 attended THRIVE only, and 67 attended both 15 \\programs. Most students attending SMART only were ninth graders (83.2%), while the majority attending THRIVE only were eighth graders (66.7%). About equal percentages of eighth graders (53.7%) and ninth graders (46.3%) attended both programs. Whereas the district percentage of female students in eighth and ninth grades was 50.1%, the programs served a much larger proportion of females: 63.2%, 66.7%, and 59.7% for SMART, THRIVE, and both programs, respectively. Table 1 Percentage of Students Served by Race: SMART/THRIVE and Comparison PROGRAM Total Am Indian Comparison 0.2 SMART 0.0 THRIVE 0.0 BOTH 1.5 0.3 Asian 1.7 0.0 6.1 1.5 1.7 African American Hispanic Other 69.0 88.0 84.8 89.6 70.2 4.8 0.8 3.0 4.5 4.6 1.4 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 White 22.9 7.2 6.1 3.0 21.8 Total n 3726 125 66 67 3984 Note. Comparison group is all eighth and ninth grade students not served by either the SMART or THRIVE programs. Table 2 Program Attended by Grade Level PROGRAM Total GRADE 08 09 Total Count % within PROGRAM Count % within PROGRAM Count % within PROGRAM Comparison 1727 46.3% 1999 53.7% 3726 100.0% SMART 21 16.8% 104 83.2% 125 100.0% THRIVE 44 66.7% 22 33.3% 66 100.0% BOTH 36 53.7% 31 46.3% 67 100.0% 1828 45.9% 2156 54.1% 3984 100.0% EVALUATION DESIGN The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. A mixed-methods design was employed to address the research questions. Results are primarily descriptive in nature\ninferential statistics from 16achievement analyses are discussed. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected by trained observers. The observers administered and collected surveys to THRIVE teachers and students and conducted focus groups with students and SMART mentors. The majority of the time was spent observing classrooms using the School Observation Measure (SOM) described below. Observers also conducted focus groups with students and SMART mentors and administered or distributed surveys to students. teachers, Algebra I teachers and parents. Additionally, achievement data from students participating in SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 was collected and analyzed by CREP. Details about all of the instruments and evaluation procedures are provided in subsequent sections INSTRUMENTATION To address the questions proposed in this mixed-methods evaluation, data from achievement tests. student records, classroom observations, surveys, and focus groups were collected. Six measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: standardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. ACHIEVEMENT TEST SCORES Math Benchmark Test 2003 - 2004 and 2004 - 2005: The Benchmark Test is a state-mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as advanced, proficient. basic, and below basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiple-choice and open response items. Internal consistency reliability estimates, from the 2002-2004 administrations ranged from Cronbachs Alpha of .84 - .87.  End of Course Exams (EOC) 2005: The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterion- referenced test with questions that align with the goals and subject-specific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. Internal consistency reliability estimates, from the 2001-2004 administrations ranged from Cronbachs Alpha of .81 - .88. 17 ITBS Math Subtests\nThe Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and computation. The ITBS test is a norm-referenced. The ITBS information is proprietary and, therefore. estimates of reliability and validity could not be obtained. SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests: These curriculum-based tests measured students ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems. graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. STUDENT RECORDS  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in comparison to achievement measures. CLASSROOM OBSERVATION MEASURES The data collection instruments for classroom observations were the School Observation Measure (SOM), including three math-specific items designed to better tailor the instrument, and the Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA). The SOM and addendum items were designed to gather information about instructional practices and classroom activities. The RSCA was used to gather more detailed information about the level of student engagement during target activities throughout target observations. The instruments used for classroom observation are described below. School Observation Measure (SOM): School Observation Measure (SOM\"). The SOM was developed to determine the extent to which different common and alternative teaching practices (e.g., direct instruction, cooperative learning, student inquiry, experiential learning) are used by teachers (Ross, Smith \u0026amp; Alberg, 1999) in typical (non-evaluative) classroom contexts. During each recording session, notes were completed every 15 minutes in different classrooms for a total of four at the end of one, 60-minute observation period. Researchers objectively recorded the relative use, non-use and frequency of 26 observation items covering a variety of classroom practices. Additionally, researchers recorded the extent to which high academically focused instructional time and high student attention/interest were observed. At the conclusion 18of a one-hour targeted visit, a trained observer summarizes the frequency with which each of the strategies was observed, yielding one SOM Data Summary Form. The frequency is recorded via a 5-point rubric that ranges from (0) Not Observed to (4) Extensively Observed. Two global items rate, respectively, the academically-focused instructional time and degree of student attention and interest. A reliability study by Lewis, Ross, and Alberg (1999) found that pairs of trained observers selected identical SOM categories 67% of the time and rated within one category 95% of the time. Math Addendum: Because the program under evaluation was specifically a mathematics program. three additional observations items unique to mathematics were developed. The items were written by a member of the research team with an Arkansas teaching certificate in mathematics based on the standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). The three items addressed the teachers actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. Each item was rated as 1 indicating not observed to 5 reflecting strong application. Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA): This Rubric (Ross \u0026amp; Lowther, 2002) is applied in conjunction with SOM visits to determine the quality and depth of teacher applications of selected strategies (e.g., cooperative learning, higher-order questioning, project-based learning, and technology as a learning tool). These strategies reflect emphasis on higher-order learning and attainment of deep understanding of content. Such learning outcomes seem consistent with those likely to be engendered by well designed, real-world linked exercises, projects, or problems utilizing technology as a learning tool. Each item includes a two-part rating scale. The first is a four-point scale, with 1 indicating a very low level of application, and 4 representing a high level of application. The second is a Yes/No option to the question: Was technology used? with space provided to write a brief description of the technology use. The RSCA was completed as part of SOM observation periods. The RSCA reliability results indicate that observer ratings were within one category for 97% of the whole-school observations and for 90% of the targeted observations (Sterbinsky \u0026amp; Burke, 2004). A RSCA was completed at the end of each targeted classroom observation. 19  SURVEYS H Four surveys were developed by the evaluation team to collect data pertaining to the effectiveness of the SMART/THRIVE Program. The specific audiences around which the current evaluation focused were parents, Algebra I teachers currently teaching in Little Rock schools, SMART/THRIVE teachers, and students currently enrolled in THRIVE. Items were designed to address both the primary and secondary research questions of the study and to glean open-ended perceptions from the four data collection groups. Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included as were open-ended questions about both programs. Program-specific items were presented to gain general and specific knowledge about both programs as separate entities. This also eliminated the need for respondents to complete two separate surveys. Each survey was divided into three sections. The first section was used to collect demographic information specific to each group. The second section was comprised of objective items specific to the research questions and each program (SMART and THRIVE). In the final section, the respondents were presented with four, open-ended questions which probed strategies, strengths, weaknesses and general additional comments for each program. Responses across all surveys were scored through the use of Likert-type ratings ranging from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5). Demographic information was also collected. Drafts of all surveys were presented at the evaluation team meetings in Little Rock and revisions were made from team participants suggestions. Surveys are found in Appendix A. FOCUS GROUPS m Two sets of focus group protocols were developed by the evaluation team. Students were asked their perceptions of the effectiveness of the SMART/THRIVE program. SMART mentors also were asked their impressions of program effectiveness. Additionally, participants were also asked to report their perceptions of program impact. Student and Mentor protocols were similar, but tailored to their specific audience. Question drafts were presented at an evaluation team meeting in Little Rock and revisions were made from team participants suggestions. PROCEDURES Data for this evaluation were collected during the spring of 2005. Targeted observations were conducted during late spring, 2005 using the SOM (including 3 math-specific addendum items) and RSCA 20 - instruments. Surveys, focus groups and program-designed achievement tests were also administered during this time period. The classroom observations were conducted during February and March, 2005. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different ri days. Student performance measures were administered in late spring. Table 3 summarizes the data collection procedure. Table 3 Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Instrument Targeted Classroom SOM Observations RSCA Number Completed/Data Source Total 5 19 Surveys SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent Algebra I Teacher Student 10 SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE 70 SMART/142 THRIVE Focus Groups Student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group 21 Participants 2 Participants Achievement fests MaSi Benchmark Test Attendance Data 2003 - 2004 and 2004 -2005 End of Course Exams ITBS ......SMART 2004 Attendance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 210 students 143 students Description Observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During the observation period, note forms were completed every 15 minutes. Four^ sets of observation notes were completed for each SOM. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Four RSCAs were completed for each SOM. ItOTS specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher sun/eys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers. THRIVE parent surveys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers. Algebra 1 teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers. During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes.  Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol to conduct an on-site, 45-minute focus group with 2 of the 7 mentors^_____ ___________ Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by independent entities and distributed throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Exams were taken during the Spring of 2005. Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students. Data were collected from program heads and sent to researchers. Note: One SOM session was cut short due to scheduling, yielding 3 observations sheets and 3 RSCAs. ACHIEVEMENT TESTS End-of-course (EOC) Algebra I test scores were used as 2004-05 outcomes for 9* grade students. with 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores used as a covariate. No covariate was available for 8* grade students, because no comparable district or state tests were administered to 7* graders in 2003-04. 21  The End of Course Exams were administered at the end of the academic year to all students enrolled in Algebra I during the 2004-2005 school year. The ITBS exam was administered only to 9* grade students, thus outcomes for this exam were available only for 9*^ graders. With no 8* grade scores available, 2003-2004 Benchmark scores were used for covariate comparisons. Additionally, curriculum-based pre- and postprogram exams were administered on the first and last day of both programs. Both pre- and post-program-designed exams were comprised of 20 items, asking students to simplify, evaluate, graph, and solve equations. The SMART exams were geared to test pre-algebra and early algebra content and the THRIVE exams were designed to examine content expected of students completing Algebra I. The pre-program exams and post-program exams were identical. These exams are provided in Appendix B. CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS Trained observers completed a series of classroom visits to collect frequency data regarding observed instructional practices, use of technology and level of student engagement. Classroom teachers were advised that the observers would be present throughout the semester, but were instructed to deliver lessons as usual. A targeted procedure was used for the present study given that the observations were of the THRIVE sessions rather than of a school-wide, cross-categorical program. The majority of the observations were conducted by one researcher, with the second researcher observing for one SOM to examine inter-rater reliability. The inter-rater reliability for the joint observation was high\nobservers selected identical SOM categories 88% of the time and rated within one category 100% of the time. The standard SOM procedure involves evaluation of an entire school by visiting 10-12 randomly selected classrooms for 15 minutes each. However, the goal of this evaluation was to examine the practices within a single program, where all classrooms were participating in the same activities at the same times, not assess an entire school. Therefore, procedures were modeled from those used by Lowther, Ross, and Morrison (2003) in their examination a school laptop computer program. A total of five SOM observations were conducted. Both the RSCA and the Math Addendum items were completed at the same time. A total of 19 RSCAs were completed because one observation session was interrupted by a scheduled class dismissal. 22 I d M SURVEYS d E The program teacher surveys were administered and collected by researchers on March 5, 2005 during a faculty meeting. Student surveys were administered and collected by researchers during a March 5 class. Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed via district mail. Parent surveys were distributed through students and collected by teachers before being sent to CREP for analysis. Additional parent surveys were administered and collected by a member of the research team at the student Math Fair. FOCUS GROUPS During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups, each of which lasted 45 minutes. The mentors were contacted individually by researchers via phone, mail and email. Two of the seven mentors responded and attended. The mentor focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. RESULTS The results of this evaluation are presented below and synthesized to address each research question in the Discussion section. These results are presented by measurement strategy\nhowever, the findings are synthesized across instruments to reflect each research question in the Discussion section of this report. SCHOOL OBSERVATION MEASURE (SOM) As noted previously, observers focused on the 26 instructional strategies provided in the SOM using a standard five-point rubric (0 =not observed, 1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, and 4 = extensively). The results are presented with a full, categorical breakdown in Table 4. Four strategies were observed occasionally to extensively at a frequency level of at least 75% or higher. These strategies include team teaching (100%), cooperative/collaborative learning (100%), use of higher-level questioning strategies (80%), and teacher acting as a coach/facilitator (100%). The data indicates that students were engaged in collaborative learning situations with high teacher support where they were asked to use problem solving and critical thinking skills to solve problems. Strategies that were observed occasionally to extensively during 40-60% of the sessions included direct instruction (lecture), higher level instructional feedback (40%), experiential hands-on learning (40%), independent inquiry or research (40%) and student 23M discussion (60%). Student discussion heavily dominated the instructional context (60% observed frequency) M with teams of students working together to solve problems and propose new ideas. Some individual seat work and independent research was observed (40% each respectively), however, these frequently were noted to lead into a group-based activity in which individuals proposed ideas to a team that was used to create a corporate answer to problems proposed by the teachers. Sustained reading was observed in one classroom. fl Technology was heavily used (80%) as teachers relied upon graphing calculators and problem solving with H technology as an integral part of the curriculum. Teachers demonstrated different ways to solve problems and/or work towards solutions via calculator and multi-media use. High academically focused time was fl observed extensively (80% of the time) as was high student engagement (in 60% of the observation sessions). Since the evaluation context was an Algebra I Saturday supplementary program with specific model parameters, some instructional strategies within the SOM were not observed. These strategies included individual tutoring, ability and multi-age groupings, work centers, integration of subject areas, project-based learning, independent seatwork, sustained wzriting/composition and systematic individual instruction. Generally, the aggregated data reflect efficient use of class time with teachers using a team teaching approach to deliver instruction to collaborative teams of students. The aforementioned math addendum items served to capture specific strategies used frequently among math teachers. Results from observations showed that THRIVE teachers frequently emphasized conceptual understanding over rote learning 60% of the time observed. Teachers also demonstrated connections between math and daily life frequently in at least 60% of the observations. One additional strategy of high interest was teachers cultivation of students confidence, flexibility and inventiveness in doing mathematics. This was observed frequently among 80% of the observations. None of the math-specific strategies were observed extensively. 24 n Table 4 II School Observation Measure (SOM) Data Summary for Little Rock-SMART/THRIVE Project N = 5 H II II II n n The extent to which each of the following was used or present in the school...________ Instructional Orientation Direct instruction (lecture) Team teaching Cooperative/collaborative learning Individual tutoring (teacher, peer, aide, adult volunteer) Classroom Organization Ability groups Multi-age grouping Work centers (for individuals or groups) Instructional Strategies Higher-level instructional feedback (written or verbal) to enhance student learning Integration of subject areas (interdisciplinary/thematic units) Project-based learning Use of higher-level questioning strategies Teacher acting as a coach/tacilitator Parent/community involvement in learning activities Student Activities Independent seatwork (self-paced worksheets, individual assignments) Experiential, hands-on learning Systematic individual instruction (differential assignments geared to individual needs) Sustained writing/composition (self-selected or teacher-generated topics) Sustained reading Independent inquiry/research on the part of students Student discussion Technology Use Computer for instructional delivery (e.g. CAI, drill \u0026amp; practice) Technology as a learning tool or resource (e.g., Internet research, spreadsheet or database creation, multi-media, CD Rom, Laser disk) Assessment Performance assessment strategies Student self-assessment (portfolios, individual record books) Summary Items High academically focused class time High level of student Percent None Percent Rarely Percent Occasionally Percent Percent Frequently Extensively 20.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 20.0 0.0 80.0 100.0 20.0 100.0 100.0 80.0 40.0 40.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 attention/interest/engagement________________________ Note: One SOM is comprised of approximately 8 classroom visits. 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 60.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 60.0 25 n RUBRIC FOR STUDENT-CENTERED ACTIVITIES (RSCA) IB The RSCA results reflect the percentage of observed sessions in which selected strategies are II observed at least once. The quality of the application and the percentage of sessions in which technology was used with the observed strategy are also recorded. A descriptive summary of the RSCA results is presented in Table 5. IB The RSCA results suggest that the level of application with which THRIVE program teachers applied certain instructional practices, particularly with regard to cooperative learning and higher-level questioning strategies was high. Additionally, students evidenced appropriate use of technology (calculators, multimedia. and spreadsheets) in self-directed activities to create new knowledge. The most notable area of technology use was among cooperative learning groups, where students collaboratively utilized multimedia, calculators and graphing applications to solve problems\nteachers often helped direct collaborative groups. Project-based learning was not observed and although student discussion, experiential hands on learning, and independent research were applied, the level of application was limited or somewhat limited without technology use. Additionally, aggregate results suggest that technology was used in more than a third of the instances during which 5/7 remaining student-centered activities were observed and in over 25% of the instances during which 6/7 remaining activities or strategies were applied. 26 II Table 5  Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA) N = 19 Student-Centered Activities Not Limited Observed Application Somewhat Limited Somewhat Strong Application Application Strong Application Technology In Use * Cooperative Learning 8.7 13.0 8.7 21.7 47.8 60.9 II Project-Based Learning 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Higher-Level Questioning Strategies Experiential Hands-on Learning Independent Inquiry/Research Student Discussion 26.1 56.5 56.5 56.5 0.0 4.3 8.7 17.4 30.4 39.1 4.3 26.1 4.3 0.0 8.7 21.7 30.4 17.4 13.0 39.1 4.3 0.0 39.1 30.4 Students as Producers of Knowledge Using 30.4 8.7 21.7 39.1 0.0 Technology 'Percentages Indicating Observed Levels of Application 'Rating Scale: 1= limited application: 4=strong application * See addendum description of technology use  SCHOOL OBSERVATION SUMMARY Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the observations revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state-designed SLEs. The most striking result was the extent to which team teaching and collaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was noted among observed sessions. During the teaching sessions that were observed, the Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning. Furthermore, this practice facilitated frequent instances of promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instruction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. 27 SURVEY RESULTS  Four surveys (Algebra I Teacher, Student, Parent, SMART/THRIVE Teacher) were administered in late March, 2005. Results for each of the four instruments were examined independently. Demographic  characteristics of the respondents are representative: however, not all respondents completed the demographic section of the surveys. Additionally, the total number of respondents to THRIVE items varied from the total number of SMART respondents across questionnaires. Demographic differences are described n for each group. Finally, item percentages across surveys did not always total 100% because of missing input from some of the respondents (i.e., there were questions to which some people did not respond). PROGRAM PARTICIPANT SURVEY THRIVE total of 142 students responded to items pertaining to THRIVE and 70 students responded to items pertaining to SMART\\ Of the 138 THRIVE respondents who reported their ethnicity, 77% specified African American, 7% specified Multi-Ethnic, and 4.2% specified Asian. The remaining categories of Caucasian (3.5%), Hispanic (2.8%), and Other (2.1%) were specified less frequently. A total of 63.4% of the respondents were female\n35.9% of the respondents were male. Of the 70 students responding to SMART questionnaire items and specifying demographic information, 38.6% were female and 61.4% were male. Regarding ethnicity, 82.9% of the SMART respondents specified African American, 4.3% specified Caucasian or Hispanic respectively, 2.9% specified Multi-Ethnic and 1.4% specified Other or Asian. Table 6 contains the results for THRIVE and SMART objective survey items. These results are summarized in text below. Summaries of the open ended questions are shown in subsequent Tables. The overall trend in response types was positive\nfifty percent or more students indicated agreement or strong agreement across all items. Well over eighty percent of students responding to the survey reported that team competitions made THRIVE classes more fun. Over seventy-five percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE made algebra more enjoyable and instilled confidence in doing well on the algebra Benchmark Exam. Over sixty percent of student respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE improved their self-confidence about math, helped them feel comfortable asking questions in THRIVE class.  Because some students participating in the THRIVE program did not participate in SMART during the previous summer, differences between respondent numbers were expected. 28 n II and facilitated problem solving through calculator use. A total of 66.6% of respondents indicated that THRIVE IB teachers helped them with problems they were having in their regular algebra class. At least one half (50.0%) of the students responding to the survey indicated that THRIVE helped improve their algebra grades and II helped them understand how to apply algebra concepts in real life. In contrast to the positive trend in responses across items, two areas in which some students showed disagreement were related to n generalization and application. This is somewhat consistent with responses noted within the open ended II portion of the student survey where students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. II Additionally, more students responded neutrally to items pertaining to content, grades and application when compared to responses for items related to motivation, fun and self-confidence. II Table 6 II Student Survey - THRIVE N = 142 THRIVE items II 1. Because of THRIVE, I have learned how to use a calculator to help solve algebra problems. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 67.6 Percent Neutral 23.9 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 8.5 II 2. THRIVE makes algebra more enjoyable. 77.5 20.4 2.1 3. II 4. II 5. 6. II 7. 8. THRIVE has helped me get good grades in algebra. I think I will do well on the algebra Benchmark Exam because of THRIVE. In THRIVE, I have learned how algebra can be used in real life. THRIVE has made me more confident about math. My THRIVE teacher helps me with problems I am having in my algebra class. I feel comfortable asking questions in THRIVE class. 50.0 78.9 55.6 66.2 66.2 74.7 40.9 16.2 33.8 24.7 25.4 21.1 8.5 4.2 10.6 7.8 8.5 4.2 9. Team competitions make THRIVE classes fun. 87.3 6.3 2.8 29 a n II SMART II Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement for items pertaining to the SMART portion of survey were consistently above 75%. Of the 70 respondents, over 85% agreed or strongly agreed that II SMART helped prepare them for Algebra I in the fall, and 80% agreed or strongly agreed that SMART made algebra more fun. Seventy-eight percent agreed or strongly agreed that the SMART program helped them II remember math skills from the previous year. Students agreed or strongly agreed that they were motivated to II go to their SMART classes and that the program helped them apply math to solve real-life problems across 75% of the surveys. Fewer students indicated neutral or negative responses for the SMART survey items II than noted among THRIVE survey responses. Of those that indicated disagreement or strong disagreement, the item noted most frequently (4.3%) was related to application (We learned how to use math to solve real- II life problems.). Overall, the trend towards agreement with items probing the attributes of the programs was positive. Table 7 presents detailed results for the SMART student survey. II Table 7 II Student Survey - SMART N = 70 II SMART Items 1. II 2. II 3. 4. II 5. SMART helped me remember the math skills I learned last school year. SMART made algebra more fun. In SMART, we learned how to use math to solve real-life problems. I was motivated to go to my SMART class during the summer. Because of SMART, I was prepared to begin Algebra I in the fall. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 78.6 Percent Neutral 18.6 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 2.9 81.4 75.7 75.7 88.6 14.3 15.7 18.6 5.7 1.4 4.3 1.4 1.4 il OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES THRIVE students had an opportunity to respond to four, open-ended questions as part of the survey. Student impressions of the SMART program were polled across all students even though SMART was not in session and not all students participated in it during the previous summer. SMART and THRIVE were evaluated separately using the same questions to preserve the integrity of their differences. Student responses are summarized below. 30I H 11 Question 1: Students were asked to comment on what they liked about the THRIVE program. The II majority of responses reflected an appreciation of the programs use of competition and a sense that the program made math more fun/enjoyable. Additional comments suggested that students enjoyed having a II program that allowed for review and expansion of concepts taught in the regular Algebra I classroom. Students also noted that they enjoyed the teachers and felt comfortable asking for clarification when II necessary. Additionally, snacks and rewards were notably cited as positive influences of THRIVE. Table 8 II summarizes what students liked about THRIVE. TABLE 8 II What do you like about THRIVE? II Description II II II II II Makes math fun Uses competition/games in Provides expansion/review of math concepts Clarifies/Remediates confusing concepts Teachers are good/likeable Snacks People/friends in THRIVE classes Class size/Format Money/Rewards NA - responses did not pertain to question Enjoy using a calculator Provides a head start for following week in class Improves self-confidence/provides comfortable place to learn Class Time/Format TOTAL Frequency 42 37 18 17 17 14 11 8 7 7 4 3 3 2 190 Percentage 22% 19% 9% 9% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 100% II Question 2: When asked what they would change about the THRIVE program, the ovenwhelming majority of students responded that they would make no changes. Students who did comment on needed II changes mostly cited a later start time or a more compressed time period (e.g., two hours rather than four hours) as potential prospects. Non-specific time changes (e.g., change time, time, different time) were also H noted among open-ended comments but coded separately due to the large number of students commenting on previously cited specifics about THRIVE hours. Table 9 provides an illustration of student comments. The Hi miscellaneous category captured unique comments made by individual students (e.g., field trips, guest speakers. Physical Education). 31 I TABLE 9 What would you change about THRIVE? Description No change Less time Later start time Miscellaneous Class format/more varied activities Longer breaks Non-specific time change Snacks/lunch Enhance competition More time More peers/neighborhood school Rewards Earlier time Teacher changes TOTAL Frequency 57 17 14 11 10 8 8 8 5 4 3 3 2 2 152 Percentage 38% 11% 9% 7% 7% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 100% Question 3: Students were asked to comment on how THRIVE has helped them over the course of the semester. Most comments suggested that THRIVE helped students enhance comprehension of general algebraic concepts. Many students also indicated that THRIVE helped improve their grades and improved their understanding of how to use a calculator to solve and graph equations. Additionally, students' comments suggested that THRIVE reinforced specific concepts (e.g., graphing equations with polynomials) and made the students feel that they were staying ahead in weekly algebra classes. Of 150 responses, three indicated that THRIVE was not helpful\nnone indicated that it was detrimental. Table 10 summarizes the results. TABLE 10 If THRIVE has helped you, how has it helped you? Description Enhanced comprehension of algebra Improved grades Use of calculator Reinforced specific concepts in algebra Helps stay ahead in math Builds confidence/makes math more positive Miscellaneous (individual answers) Negative-Did not help TOTAL Frequency 63 20 18 16 14 8 8 3 150 Percentage 42% 13% 12% 11% 9% 5% 5% 2% 100% 32 II l\u0026lt; Questions about SMART were analyzed. Response rates across SMART questions, although Il somewhat different, do not vary significantly. Question 4: When asked to identify the most appealing aspects of SMART, most comments were If positive, yet nonspecific in nature. Examples included responses that alluded to liking everything about the program or how the program helped me (in general)\". A number of students (13%) noted that SMART II prepared them for math in the fall and reduced anxiety when entering first year algebra. Calculator use and II team competition garnered notably high response rates (13% and 12% respectively). Some students made specific comments about the positive influence of the SMART teachers and others made comments about rewards delivered through the program. Response categories are provided in Table 11. TABLE 11 What do you like about SMART? Description Nonspecific positive responses (e.g.. Everything\nHow it helped me) More prepared for math/ reduced anxiety Using the calculator Team competitions The teachers Reinforcement and rewards Social aspects/visiting with peers from other schools The snacks Games and content delivery NA (e.g., I did not go to SMART\nI do not know) Format/time/class size TOTAL Frequency 31 11 11 10 5 5 5 3 2 2 1 86 Percentage 36% 13% 13% 12% 6% 6% 6% 3% 2% 2% 1% 100% Question 5: Students also provided information about what aspects of the SMART program they would change. Over sixty percent of the responses favored no change. Of the remaining responses, 23% indicated a time change as appropriate. Of those, the large majority of comments suggested a later starting time rather than a reduced time period. One student noted a desire to reduce the amount of time spent at SMART. A few students who did not participate in SMART simply indicated such\nno additional comments were recorded among these respondents. The remaining responses indicated a desire to enhance the program by adding team competitions, extending the time during which SMART was available, and providing more applied skills for use in everyday situations. Data are summarized in Table 12. 33 TABLE 12 IVhaf would you change about the SMART program? Response No change Time Snacks NA (I did not go to SMART\n1 like Math) More team competitions More applied skills Extend time/day and/or hours________ TOTAL Frequency Percentage 41 15 3 3 2 1 1 66 62% 23% 5% 5% 3% 1% 1% 100% Question 6: When asked about how SMART helped students, the overwhelming majority of comments identified the programs purpose in preparing students for Algebra I as most important. Many responses also indicated the use of a calculator as instrumental in helping students solve algebra problems. Additionally, students noted that SMART helped improve their grades and built confidence in math. TABLE 13 If SMART helped you, describe how. Response Made me feel prepared Use of calculator Built confidence in math Improved grades NA(I did not go to SMART\n1 liked THRIVE) Reinforced specific concepts Miscellaneous (I would like field trips) Increased engagement/interest TOTAL PARENT SURVEY THRIVE Frequency Percentage 41 11 6 6 3 1 1 1 70 59% 16% 9% 9% 4% 1% 1% 1% 100% A total of 35 parents responded to survey items pertaining to THRIVE. Of those, 57% were female and 40% were male. A total of 80% of parent respondents indicated that their child was African American, 8.6% specified Asian and 2.9% specified Caucasian, Hispanic and Other respectively. No parental respondents specified Multi-Ethnic as the ethnicity of their child. 34 n II Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement were consistently above 80% across all survey il items. Overall, parents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE was a good program (94%), that they felt comfortable having their child attend classes on Saturdays (91.4%) and that they felt teachers in the program II helped their children feel successful in math (91.4%). The neutral responses that were noted were made in response to items pertaining to childrens attitudes about math and improvement in grades. No negative II responses to the items were reported. Table 14 provides a summary of the responses. H Table 14 11 Parent Survey - THRIVE N = 35 THRIVE items 11 Percent Strongly Agree/Agree Percent Percent Strongly Neutral Disagree/ 1. II 2. 3. II 4. 5. II 6. II II II II n The teachers in this program make my child feel that he/she can succeed. Because of this program, my child is more motivated to complete algebra homework. This program has helped improve my childs attitude about math. I am comfortable having my child attend classes on Saturdays. Because of this program, I have seen an improvement in my childs Algebra I grades. Overall, I think this is a good program. SMART 91.4 88.6 82.9 91.4 80.0 94.3 5.7 8.6 17.1 5.7 14.3 2.9 Disagree 0.0 Percent Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A smaller number of parents (21) responded to the five survey items pertaining to SMART. Of those, 61.9% were female and 33.3% were male. Eighty-five percent of parental respondents cited their childs ethnicity as African American. The remaining respondents indicated Asian (4.8%) or Other (4.8%) as their childs ethnicity. Ninety percent of parent respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement when asked whether SMART did a good job of preparing children for Algebra I in the fall and improving childrens perception that they could succeed in math. Results are noted in tables 15 and 16. Slightly over 85% of respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement with items related to whether SMART improved their childs attitude about math and whether they felt comfortable sending their children to classes during the summer. A total of 35 h II n 76% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that the program classes were easy for their children to attend. n None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Of those that responded neutrally, the highest number (14.3%) were noted for the item pertaining to whether SMART had II improved attitudes about math. No parents indicated negative responses for any of the items. II Table 15 II Parent Survey- SMART N=21 SMART Items II 1. II 2. 3. II 4. 5. II Because of this program, my child felt like he/she could succeed in Math. The summer classes were easy for my child to attend. This program helped improve my childs attitude about Math. I am comfortable having my child attend classes during the summer. This program did a good job of preparing my child for beginning Algebra I in the fall. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 90.5 Percent Neutral 4.8 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 Percent Dont Know 0.0 76.2 85.7 85.7 90.5 4.8 0.0 4.8 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES II Question 1: When asked to provide their impressions of THRIVE, many parents responses described II it as a motivating math program (19%) targeting childrens math skills. Numerous comments suggested that parents characterize THRIVE as a program that improves general math skills (19%) and/or focuses on II problem solving and/or critical thinking (15%). A number of parents comments also reflected an awareness of the programs use of motivating games and competition to foster interest in math (15%). The balance of the II comments were positive and reflected an awareness of THRIVE as a supplemental alternative to the weekly Algebra I curriculum. II II 36 H bII II TABLE 16 II Please tell us your impression of the THRIVE program. What do you see as taking place during the sessions? II II II II Description Helps child feel fulfilled/motivated about math Helps child improve math skills Focuses critical thinking and problem solving Integrates games and fun into math Non-specific positive commendation Practical application Provides individualized tutoring provides review of school curriculum Class format: small groups and team competition TOTAL Frequency 5 5 4 4 2 2 2 21 27 Percentage 19% 19% 15% 15% 7% 7% 7% 7% 4% 100% II Question 2 and Question 3: Questions 2 and 3 addressed parents opinions of THRIVE. One third of the comments made about parents positive opinions indicated that it was motivating. Parents also noted that II they liked how THRIVE provided additional help (17%) and made efforts to improve specific math skills (12%). n Some parents reported global positive experiences and satisfaction with THRIVE (14%). Table 17 provides additional data regarding what parents liked about the program. II Regarding parents opinions about whether aspects of THRIVE should be changed, 29% recommended no change and/or responded positively about the program. Of the comments requesting n change, one third recommended expanding the breadth and length of the program. Specifically, these parents made note that more time (23%) should be allocated for THRIVE and that more students (10%) should be II involved. Table 18 provides additional information about isolated comments for changing THRIVE. II II n 37 II II TABLE 17 II What did you like about the THRIVE program? Description Frequency Percentage II II II II Motivating Provides additional help Non-specific positive commendation Improve math skills Class size, time, format Learning new strategies Games Parent gatherings Prepares for benchmark exam Teaches calculator skills TOTAL 14 7 6 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 42 33% 17% 14% 12% 7% 7% 2% 2% 2% 2% 100% II II TABLE 18 If anything, what would you change about the THRIVE program? II Description Frequency Percentage II II II II II No change Extend time/meet more frequently Expand program to more students More challenge Expand into summer Expand program to after school Get credit Later start Measurement of progress More communication between parents and teachers More funding More hands on learning More structure Transportation\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_1408","title":"\"2005-06 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","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":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2005-12-07"],"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--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["\"2005-06 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"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/1408"],"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":["100 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_69","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"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/69"],"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\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nArkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 SfATE CAPITOL MALL  LITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (SOI) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education December 22, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED JAN 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of December 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, oo'FI O ~ ~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair - Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle* Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for December 2005. Respectfully Submitted, g'H 2:-h,,_ Scott Smitfi\nBaf'i 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on December 22, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Based on the information availaole at Novemoer 30, 2005, the' ADE calculated the State Fo~ndation Funding for FY 05/06 sub'ect to eriodic ad'ustments B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 On November 30 2005 aistributions of State Founaation Funding for FY 05/06 were as follows RSD - $23,333,628 NLRSD -$12,150,580 PCSSD - $20 208 384 Jhe allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 05/06 at November ~O 2005 subject to eriodic adjustments, were as allows~ LRSD - $64,167,477. NLRSD - $33,414,099 PCSSD - $55,573 06 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at November 30, for fY 05/06 sub\"ect to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal SeNices Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 005 ntly the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Based on the information available, the ADE calculatei:I at November 30, 200 for FY 05/06 subject to Qeriodic adjustmentsf G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 Distributions for FY 05/06 at November 30, 2005, totaled $5,082,872. Allotmen ~alcul9ted for FY 05/06 was $13 977,904 subject to eriodic ad\"ustments H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 istributions ot FY 05/0-6 at ovemoer 30 2005 were RSD - $1,21 ,45 t,ILRSD - $1,209,561 PCSSD - $3 240 288 uhe allotments 05/06 at November 30 2005 sub\"ectto adjustments, w RSD - $4,048,176 NLRSD-$4,031,872 CS_SD,\n_$10,800,964 IC J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing , December of each year. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing , annually. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 In March 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay ttie third one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance w~notified to P-aY. the first one-third ~yment fm\nFY 05/06 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 In March 2005, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At March 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $2,650,087.34 NLRSD - $550,666.66 PCSSD - $1,690,442.44 In Novemoer 2005, General Finance made t e last one-thira payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transP.ortation budget. The budget is now P.aid out in three egual installments RSD - $4, 1 3, 06.00 NLRSD -$834,966.13 PCSSD - $2J884,201.56 aia for FY 04/05 In November 2005, General-Finance made the first one-thira payment to the pistricts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now P.aid out in three equal installments At November 2005 tlie following had bee LRSD- $1,415,633.33 ~LRSD -$284,716.52 PCSSD - $974,126.58 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, P._aperwork was generated for tlie f!rst P..ayment i tlie 05/0(! ~ch6Q!..year for the Magnet and M-to-M fransQortation J:Qgram N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD -6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued} In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q . Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. 10 1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 12 II. MONITORING COMP EN SA TORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was  requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 14 JI. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment {SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 15 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool {PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled afterthe Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201- A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearance Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 IL MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 8. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed'under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation.  As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION {Continued} E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to reviewtheirfindings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued} E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued} 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued} The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMTand its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month. of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 39 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted . 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued} 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher,  class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) D. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas.   1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. , 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented  to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 49 VJ. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children {BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, {i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate {Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course {Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 50 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference atthe ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency {LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Prfncipal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from sch_ool districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 54 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 {Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Horne, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.rn. until 11 :30 a.rn. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.rn. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Leaming\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the ke\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1771","title":"Court filings regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) preliminary evaluation report for Compass Learning, Reading Recovery, and SMART/THRIVE, LRSD's reply to Joshua's response to Court's order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Magnet schools","Education--Finance","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) preliminary evaluation report for Compass Learning, Reading Recovery, and SMART/THRIVE, LRSD's reply to Joshua's response to Court's order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"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/1771"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["41 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\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\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) preliminary evaluation report for Compass Learning; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to Joshua's response to Court's order of November 8, 2005; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) preliminary evaluation report for Reading Recovery; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) preliminary evaluation report for SMART/THRIVE    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED DEC 2 O 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Pending is LRSD's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 3989) to file and serve Dr. Catterall' s preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education. The motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, LRSD must filed the preliminary evaluation on Year-Round Education by 5 p.m., Friday, January 13, 2006. IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of December, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3992 Filed 12/20/2005 ~~EIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICTOF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAN 3 2006 OFACEOF DBEBREBATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report for Compass Learning in accordance with the Court's Order of November 29, 2005. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3992 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 20, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.ha2:emeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@ilj.com iohnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller 2 --------- ---------------' ' -,. CREP Cttntu for Reseord, in EducotionolPolicy  I , n.i i 0,J! 1 '; ,-: i, eh!:1.:.-:f:;,,t1' .. ,)  1:: ., ~ ~-::v ~ ),-:~4~ '_ihle ~c:r.:~; ::cri--o: t:1;5ff,c t ~ RECEIVED JAN 5 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING   ~ Con1pc1)'.:\u0026gt;Learning  DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3995 Filed 12/22/2005R te ~VED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. Case No. 4:82CV866WRW /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, JAN 3 2006 OFflCEOf DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REPLY TO JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER OF NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), for its reply to Joshua's response to the Court's Order of November 8, 2005, states: The proposed Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") budget currently before the Court for approval, is the culmination of a months long collaboration of each of the MRC 's members, including the Joshua Intervenors, which began in February 2005. On Tuesday, September 20, 2005, the MRC, by a unanimous vote of 5-0, approved the final budget for the 2004-2005 school year as well as the proposed budget for 2005-2006. The Joshua Intervenors' representative was absent for the vote. The MRC requested the Court's approval of the final figures for the 2004-2005 school year and the proposed budget for the 2005-2006 school year on or about September 22, 2005. On November 14, 2005, Joshua filed objections to the proposed budget for the MRC for the 2005- 2006 school year, seeking explanations for the increases in three areas in the proposed budg~t for 2005-2006 as compared to the interdistrict magnet school's actual expenditures for the 2004- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3995 Filed 12/22/2005 Page 2 of 4 - 2005 school year. The LRSD will respond to each of Joshua's objections in the order listed in their November 14, 2005, filing to the Court: 1. The $114,676.00 increase in special education costs from actual 2004-2005 expenses as compared to and 2005-2006 is explained by the following: (a) a half-time teaching position is recommended to increase to a full-time position at Parkview High School at a projected increase of approximately $17,000.00; (b) the LRSD salary scale is designed to reward educational advancement. Due to the efforts of certain employees, a projected increase of approximately $16,000.00 in salaries will occur during the 2005-2006 school year; (c) the MRC proposed line item budget for special education expenses also includes approximately $76,000.00, to replace employees who departed the LRSD with more senior and better educated - employees; (d) finally, of the $114,676.00 proposed increase for special education costs, $5,000.00 is proposed for incremental salary increases for current employees remaining with the LRSD, thus earning an additional year of experience. 2. The $239,855.00 increase in material and supply costs, is directly related to the LRSD' s adoption of new reading, language arts, English and journalism textbooks throughout the District, for all LRSD schools including the six stipulation magnets schools. While an additional $281,792.00 was added to the proposed MRC budget for 2005-2006 for the purchase of new textbooks for students, classroom material and supplies decreased by $41,937.00, creating the net increase of $239,855.00. Likewise, LRSD' s operating budget incurred the same cost increase for textbook adoptions and its budget includes an additional $1 ,588,852.00 while other material and supply - costs decreased by $234,617.00. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3995 Filed 12/22/2005 Page 3 of 4 3. The $258,640 increase in indirect costs relates to the administrative fee that the LRSD is authorized to charge to the magnet budget for administration of the magnet schools as outlined in the March1989 Pulaski County School desegregation case settlement agreement. The administration fee is determined using the restricted program indirect cost rate calculated periodically by the Arkansas Department of Education. Prior to June 29, 2005, the LRSD Statecalculated restricted program rate was 7.08%. On June 29, 2005, the State released new calculations for use in the 2004-2005 school year and future years changing the rate to 8.25%. Although, the State increased the rate to 8.25%, the $2,194,000.00 in the 2005-2006 proposed budget for indirect costs represents a revised rate of approximately 8.23%. 4. The closures of the Mitchell and Rightsell facilities are unrelated to the MRC' s proposed budget. The two schools were closed as a result of low enrollment and outdated - physical structures, making their continued use operationally and fiscally inefficient. The proposed MRC budget will not reduce the provision of services and educational programs to LRSD students in non-magnet or majority black schools. Moreover, because the State, PCSSD and NLRSD contribute financially to the operation of the six stipulation magnet schools, Joshua's argument that the proposed MRC budget tends to disfavor students in majority black schools is incorrect. LRSD spends less to operate its stipulation magnet schools due to the contributions from the State and the two other school districts. WHEREFORE, for the above stated reasons, Little Rock School District requests that the proposed MRC budget be approved as submitted. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ' . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3995 Filed 1212212005 Page 4 of 4 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Khayyam M. Eddings CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 22, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark. ha!!emeier@ag.s tate.ar.us sjones@mwsQ:w.com sjones@ jlj .com johnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Khayyam M. Eddings Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4SfATECAPITOLMALL  LITLEROCK,ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501)682-4475  http://arkedu.stnte.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education December 22, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203,.1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED JAN 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of December 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, J~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair - Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle* Dr: Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer -- - - - - --- - - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for December 2005. Respectfully Submitted, S~li~ 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on December 22, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,m Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA . (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3994 Filed 12/22/2005R ~e ~i\\tE D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAN 3 2006 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COlJNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report for Reading Recovery in accordance with the Court's Order of November 29, 2005. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 5011376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3994 Filed 12/22/2005 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 22, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification- of such filing to the following: mark.hae-emeier@ag .state. ar. us siones@mwsgw.com sjones@j1j .com iohnwalkerattv@ao1.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher-Heller 2 CREP Center for Research in d11cational Policy Center tor Researd1 in Edumtiorml P,~i,;y Thr, UniV\u0026lt;-\u0026gt;..rsily of V,emphis 325 Browning H,~! Memp-his. Tennessee 38152 Toil Free 1-B6o-37C-G14i REt;l:IVED JAN 5 2006 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District 2005 Aggregate Report DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-1 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JAN 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report for SMART / THRIVE in accordance with the Court's Order of November 29, 2005 . Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol A venue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-1 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 27, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark. hagemeier@ag.state.ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 - Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol A venue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 1 of 69 CREP Ctnttr for RtJtarclt in Educational Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University oi f/emphis 325 Br011ming Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 - Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District Research Report 2004-2005 DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District    This 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.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\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\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_428","title":"Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District: Research Report, 2004-2005, Draft","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":["2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District: Research Report, 2004-2005, Draft"],"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/428"],"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\nCase 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 2 of 69 CREP Center for Research in Educational Policy Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District Center for Research n Educational Policy The Universiy of Memphis 325 Browning H\u0026lt;d t4emphis. Tennessee 38152 ToB Free. 1-866^70^147 Research Report 2004-2005 DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District December 2005 Lyle Hull Davis, Ph.D. Gail Weems, Ph.D. John Nunnery, Ph.D. Center for Research in Educational PolicyCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 3 of 69 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION DHlUOilNO W N0lW5)3H33S3a Nvr aaAiaoaa This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to: a) provide cumulative evidence of SMART/THRIVE implementation practices\nb) examine the extent to which the programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African-American students\nand c) explore perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental prealgebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I, respectively. The programs intentions/goals are to: a) provide a solid foundation for Algebra, encourage exploration\nb) make mathematics fun\nc) enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics\nand c) create the confidence necessary to pursue higher level courses. The SMART program meets for two consecutive weeks during the summer and the THRIVE program meets every other Saturday during the Spring semester. SMART uses a co-teaching model with one teacher and one high school student mentor while THRIVE uses a co-teaching model with two certified teachers. The primary context of observations, focus groups and surveys was the 2005 THRIVE program. Additional attendance data were collected from the 2004 SMART program. Survey and focus group responses concerning both programs also were collected. Both programs served students from the following schools: Cloverdale, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, Mablevale, Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest. Research Questions Seven research questions provided the focus of the evaluation. The primary research question focused on the extent to which SMART/THRIVE programs improved and/or remediated math achievement among African American students. Evaluation questions were: 1. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? 2. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? 3. 4. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 7. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? RECEIVED JAN 3 2006 1 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGCase 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 4 of 69 Design The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. A mixed-methods design was employed to address the research questions. Results within this summary are primarily descriptive in nature\nhowever, achievement data will be used for comparative analyses among SMART participants. THRIVE participants^ students participating in both programs, and students participating in neither program. These data will be examined in light of attendance data provided by program heads. Evaluation Measures Six measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: standardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. Administration procedures and descriptions of instrumentation are provided below. Direct Classroom Observation Measures  School Observation Measure (SOM*): Examines frequency of usage of 26 instructional strategies.  Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA)\nProvides measurement of the degree of learner engagement in cooperative learning, project-based learning, higher-level questioning, experientiai/hands-on learning, student independent inquiry/research, student discussion and students as producers of knowledge.  Math Addendum: Rates teachers' actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. Surveys  Student Survey: Collects participant impressions and perceptions regarding the satisfaction, short-comings, strengths and influence of SMART and THRIVE programs.  Parent Survey: Collects parent perceptions and impressions regarding availability (access), influence, transportation and opinions of SMART and THRIVE.  Algebra I Teacher Survey: Collects Algebra I teacher perceptions and impressions of influence of program on student performance as well as global awareness and opinions of SMART and THRIVE.  SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey: Collects THRIVE teacher perceptions and impressions regarding professional development, influence of technology, influence of program on student performance and overall opinions of the program. Focus Groups  Student Focus Groups: Collects program participant impressions and perceptions regarding the influence of each program on Algebra I achievement, test scores, and self-confidence about math. Also collects information about SMART and THRIVE program weaknesses, strengths and needs.  Mentor Focus Group: Collects high school SMART mentor impressions and perceptions of SMART program strengths, weaknesses, needs, and influence on students. Student Records  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in light of achievement data. Participation rates are reported as well. 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 5 of 69 student Academic Performance  Math Benchmark Test (2003 - 2004) scores were analyzed. The Benchmark Test is a state- mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiple-choice and open response items  End of Course Exams (EOC) 2004-2005 scores were analyzed. The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterion-referenced test with questions that align with the goals and subjectspecific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic.  ITBS Math Subtests scores were analyzed. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and computation.  SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests: The curriculum-based tests are measures of student ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems, graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. Procedure Data for this evaluation were collected during the ^ring of 2005. Targeted observations were conducted in February and March of 2005 using the SOM, Math-addendum, and RSCA instruments. J , IVIUK I UUUOl lUUl I I, dl lU ITOV/ZA II lO U UI I I Cl I lb. Surveys, focus groups and program-designed achievement tests were also administered during this time period. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different days. Student perfonnance measures were administered in late spring. The following table summarizes the data collection procedure. 3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 6 of 69 Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Targeted Classroom Observations Instrument SOM RSCA Math Addendum Number Completed/Data _____ Source Total 5 19 5 Description A series of observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During a one hour period, four^ note forms were completed every 15 minutes. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Surveys SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent Algebra I Teacher Student 10SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE 70 SMART/142 THRIVE Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher surveys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers THRIVE parent surveys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers. Focus Groups Student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group 21 Participants 2 Participants During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. Mentors from the SMART 2004 program were contacted by researchers. Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol to conduct an on-site, 45-minute locus group with 2 of the 7 mentors. Achievement Tests Math Benchmark Test 2003-2004 and 2004 -2005 End of Course Exams ITBS Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by independent entities and distribute throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Exams were taken during the Spring of 2005. Attendance Data SMART 2004 Attendance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 210 students (88% African American) 143 students (84% African American) Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students *One observation session was comprised of three rather than four observation segments due to scheduling constraints. 4Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 7 of 69 Results Direct Classroom Observation Results Targeted Observations Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the five observation sessions revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state-designed Student Learner Expectations (SLE). The most striking result was the extent to which team teaching and coilaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was noted among observed sessions. During the teaching sessions that were observed, the Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning. Furthermore, this practice facilitated frequent instances of promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instruction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. The RSCA results suggest that the THRIVE program integrated technology into the curriculum. Average or above average implementation (e.g., level of intensity, meaningfulness, quality) was noted for activities associated with higher level thinking strategies, teamwork and independent technology use. Survey Results Student Survey The overall trend in response types was positive for survey items pertaining to THRIVE and SMART. Regarding THRIVE, students demonstrated high levels of agreement for items probing self-confidence, comfort level, growth among problem solving skills, and overall satisfaction with the program. Two areas in which some students showed some disagreement were related to generalization and application. Students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program on the open ended portion of the student survey, but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. Responses to items pertaining to SMART indicated agreement among students for items pertaining to preparedness, motivation, and application. Open-ended items also suggest overall satisfaction with SMART\nhowever, a number of student suggestions were made about changing the time during which the summer program met. Parent Survey Responses from the 35 parents who responded to the THRIVE parent survey suggest that they have positive feelings towards the program. Agreement or strong agreement was consistently noted across all survey items. No negative responses to the items were reported. The 21 parent respondents provided similar information, particularly for those items reflecting their satisfaction with the teachers, their childrens preparedness for Algebra I, and their comfort level with the program meeting time. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Neutral responses were noted for one item pertaining to whether SMART had improved attitudes about math. Parent perceptions measured with analysis of open-ended responses reflected an overall satisfaction with both programs. When asked specifically about transportation, the majority of parents did not site it as an issue\nhowever, some parents reported access to transportation being inconsistent. Algebra I Teacher Survey In contrast to response trends from the parents, students and THRIVE teachers surveyed, Algebra I teachers responses to SMART items showed slightly more varied distribution across the survey scale (Strongly Agree/Agree-Neutral-Strongly Disagree/Disagree-Dont Know). Responses from the 33 Algebra I teachers responding to THRIVE items and the 25 Algebra I teachers responding to SMART items showed a 5Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 8 of 69 positive response trend. These teachers agreed that both programs had bolstered students self-confidence and positively impacted student achievement\nhowever, they responded more neutrally to items probing the programs' influence on childrens problem solving ability and influence on general Algebra I instruction. When asked specifically about whether they felt SMART and THRIVE had had an impact on achievement differences among races, a small percentage disagreed, approximately one third responded neutrally or did not know and the remaining 48% agreed. SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey SMARTTTHRIVE Teachers responses overwhelmingly favored agreement or strong agreement with items pertaining to positive attributes among professional development, resources/materials, methodology and instructional delivery within the THRIVE and SMART programs. Two items for which some teachers indicated neutrality across both programs were related to the extent to which they felt the program had improved their own ability or their students ability to use calculators. No negative responses were noted among the items\nhowever, some teachers indicated that the limited time available for teaching was considered a shortcoming for both SMART and THRIVE. Focus Groups Student Focus Group Students perceptions of both programs suggest that there is a generally positive feeling towards SMART and THRIVE. Specifically, the consensus among the twenty-one students who participated in the focus groups was that SMART and THRIVE bolstered math skills and boosted confidence. Despite some mild distaste for required meeting times (Saturdays and during the summer), most student participants indicated that both SMART and THRIVE had reinforced Algebra I skills and provided a fun, relaxing context for learning. Many students noted that the programs had provided new strategies for problem solving and made Algebra I less daunting. There were no outwardly negative comments made. Mentor Focus Group Two high school student mentors who had participated in SMART, 2004 provided input about the SMART program primarily. The mentors viewed SMART as a preparatory program focused on reviewing prealgebra principals. Both mentors, however, also noted that SMART provided a unique environment in which competition helped motivate students and make math more enjoyable. The mentors global perception of the program was that SMART allowed students to get a head start on Algebra I principals with a simultaneous boost in confidence. Attendance Collectively, the 2004 SMART program served 210 students for which attendance data was available and the 2005 THRIVE program served 143 students for which data was available. Compared to the general population served by the district (69.0% African American), SMART and Thrive programs served a higher percentage of African American students (88.0% SMART\n84.8% Thrive\n89.6% Both). The attendance rates for SMART yielded an average rate of 97% (range: 94%- 100%) and the attendance rates for Thrive yielded an average rate of 90% (range: 81 %-100%). Achievement The results provide evidence that, in 9'*' grade, the SMART program, the Thrive program, or the combination of the two programs were associated with substantial and statistically significant improvements in the achievement of participating students relative to non-participating students on the Algebra I EOC exam. The strongest effect size was associated with a combination of the programs. Additionally, eighth grade students participating in any combination of the programs were less likely than their non-participant peers to perform at basic or below basic proficiency levels on the Algebra I EOC exam. More specifically, African American students in both eight and ninth grade who were 6Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 9 of 69 enrolled in any of the three program configurations were more likely to perform at proficient or advanced levels of proficiency than the non-participant comparison group. Statistically significant gains were also noted on the program-specific assessments for the SMART and Thrive programs. No statistically significant program effects or racial differences noted among scores from the ITBS. CONCLUSIONS Each of the major research questions will provide a framework around which the conclusions for the present study will be structured. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? StudenMevel achievement analyses yielded results suggesting that participation in SMART, Thrive and a combination of programs is associated with comparative improvements in achievement relative to nonparticipating students. Specifically, our interpretation of these outcomes focuses on the extent to which these differences in achievement relate to growth among African American students. Findings suggest that although there was not a statistically significant interaction term specific to race, participation in any of the program configurations was associated with a major reduction in the achievement gap between African American students and students of other races from 8* grade to 9* grade, from a one standard deviation deficit on 2003-04 Benchmark scores to virtually no difference on 2004-5 Algebra I EOC scores. For 2004-05 8 graders, the results suggest a positive effect of the programAfrican American students attending any program configuration were more likely to achieve at Proficient or Advanced levels. However, the lack of 2003-04 achievement data tor use as a covariate limits the strength of this evidence. Although results were favorable for African American students enrolled in both programs, no statistically significant effects were noted from ITBS scores for race or program, demonstrating that although SMART and Thrive have a direct and significant impact on curriculum-based performance measures, they have a lesser influence on standardized math achievement performance. In light of the current goal in increasing achievement among African American students, particularly in the domain of mathematics, the results from EOC and Benchmark exams are highly significant. These results are encouraging as implementation of the SMART and Thrive programs seems to have had a positive impact on African American student achievement. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Overall, the level of participation for both programs was high. The vast majority of students enrolled in SMART, Thrive or both programs missed no sessions, yielding average attendance rates of 90% or above. Additionally, data from classroom observations suggested a high degree of student engagement and participation across classrooms within the Thrive program. Given the demographic characteristics of the participants, the significant quantitative relationship between participation and student achievement gains, and the high participation rates among participants, the results provide evidence that SMART and Thrive have a positive impact on participation among African American students and that participation has had significant influence on achievement. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? During classroom visits, the majority of observed instructional strategies were couched in a collaborative teaching model focused on higher level thinking skills and student grouping. Students were observed utilizing technology throughout their lessons and were highly engaged during observation sessions. Teachers frequently posed hypothetical questions to groups to accommodate use of higher-level thinking skills and generate more varied student responses. Even when students were engaged in independent seatwork, which was rare, teachers were observed circulating among various student groups, requesting more in-depth questioning strategies in their problem solving approaches. Additionally, although the competition component 7Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 10 of 69 of the program was not observed directly, students were frequently cited encouraging fellow students in preparation for competition while working in collaborative groups. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? There was a positive response trend among SMART/THRIVE teachers across questionnaire items for both programs. Teachers generally believed that the core components of both programs bolstered student learning, particularly among students who were struggling to perform well in Algebra I classes. Additionally, they reported feeling comfortable with expectations and resources, noting that having opportunities to collaborate with other teachers and utilize competition to motivate students were essential to success. Teachers cited time constraints as a recognized weakness across both programs. The general consensus was that they wanted more time to develop deeper skills among students and to reinforce concepts taught in Algebra I classrooms. None of the respondents expressed feelings of dissatisfaction with either program and demonstrated the highest percentage of positive responses when compared to other groups (students, parents. Algebra I teachers). What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Algebra I teachers were generally positive in their reaction to both SMART and THRIVE programs, representative of an overall feeling that SMART and THRIVE facilitated student learning and generalized to the Algebra I classroom. Algebra I teachers noted observed improvements among students participating in SMART/THRIVE and globally agreed that the programs effectively enabled students to use technology in the Algebra I classrooms. A number of Algebra I teachers indicated that both programs needed to reach a larger and broader group of students. There were no indications that Algebra I teachers disliked SMART or THRIVE\nhowever, there was some evidence that some respondents felt that the programs did more to supplement what was being taught in Algebra I classrooms rather than cultivate more meaningful understanriinn nf algebraic concepts, ~ What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Students were somewhat mixed in their reactions to SMART and THRIVE, although the response trend among respondents across items was generally positive. While most of the students believed that SMART and/or THRIVE helped them with Algebra I class, others indicated mild dislike for time spent doing academics during summer and/or Saturdays. Students did perceive the programs as motivating, fun, and globally helpful. It was rewarding to note that despite some dislike of the programs' scheduled meeting times, most students indicated a desire to continue with the programs modifying very little about the actual instructional delivery. These comments were corroborated by comments students made during focus group sessions. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents' reactions to both programs were globally positive. Specifically, parents commented that the motivational, fun nature of the programs was fostering an interest in math among students. Comments for change were largely dominated by parents requesting that the program be expanded both in breath/scope and duration. None of the parents cited negative features\nhowever, some parents requested more rigor within the curriculum. When asked specifically about transportation, a concern of SMART/THRIVE program heads, the majority (84%) of parents indicated that it was not a problem. Of the parents who did indicate that transportation was a problem, inconsistency of service was cited as the primary issue. The majority of parents felt comfortable sending their children to the programs during the summer and/or on Saturdays, particularly because transportation on those days/during that time did not conflict with work or other activities that typically dominated school days. 8Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 11 of 69 Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District Research Report: 2004-2005 INTRODUCTION The Arkansas Department of Education contracted with the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at The University of Memphis to collect formative evaluation data in schools implementing SMART/THRIVE. This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to examine the extent to which the SMART/THRIVE programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African-American students. Additionally, the evaluation explores perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental pre-algebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I. It was designed as an intervention for rising and current 8'\"- and 9-grade students who are entering or will be enrolled in Algebra I. Applications for SMART are disseminated through the Sth grade teachers for any rising 9th grade student who has not taken Algebra I. Eligible rising 9th grade students who are registered to attend high school in the LRSD and will take Algebra are selected on a first come-first served basis. Seventh grade math teachers are asked to recommend students, particularly African-American or Hispanic students, who have the potential to be successful in Algebra I in the Sth grade. Students who participated in SMART are invited to participate in THRIVE. After a designated enrollment period, remaining seats are opened to any student taking Algebra I. Applications for these remaining seats are disseminated by the Algebra 1 teachers. The programs intentions/goals are to:  Provide a solid foundation for Algebra, encourage exploration Make mathematics fun Enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics  Create the confidence necessary to pursue higher level courses The goals encompass two components: pre-algebra instruction for two weeks during the summer (SMART Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year (THRIVE Program). Instruction in both 9Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 12 of 69 programs utilizes small class sizes (fewer than 18) with two teachers per class. Each program currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total African-American student population enrolled in Algebra I classes. Various local grants have funded both programs since 1999. Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training (SMART) provides opportunities for students to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed for success in Algebra 1. SMART is a two-week half-day summer institute for eligible rising 8'\" and 9' grade students who will be enrolled in Algebra 1. SMART serves approximately 200 students each year. Each SMART classroom consists of a qualified mathematics teacher, one high school mentor who demonstrates outstanding mathematical skills and a positive attitude, and no more than seventeen SMART students. Each teacher uses a variety of strategies and tools to enhance their instructional delivery. Activities include real-life situations requiring the use of math skills. SMART students are exposed to and become familiar with a range of technological tools. The most popular tool used is the Tl- 84 Plus graphing calculator. SMART students learn how to use the calculator to further and deepen their knowledge of mathematics. In addition to the TI-84 Plus calculator, students use the Calculator-Based Laboratory (CBL) and the Calculator-Based Ranger (CBR) to solve problems and perform experiments. Students who successfully complete the SMART program receive a free TI-84 Plus graphing calculator, a SMART T-shirt, and a certificate. Instructional delivery and structure within the THRIVE program is virtually identical to that noted within SMART sessions\nhowever, students do not have a high school mentor acting as a facilitator. THRIVE serves approximately 150 students, many of whom generally have been enrolled in SMART during the previous summer. Students currently enrolled in Algebra I meet bi-monthly on Saturdays during the Spring semester from 8:45 a.m.  12:25 p.m. The sessions are divided into 45-minute instructional blocks with learning activities prescribed for each block. The last block consists of two classes competing in a mathematics game/competition featuring the material covered that day. Teaching methods mirror those used in SMART, but integrate more advanced content and focus on material covered in Algebra I classrooms across the district. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Seven research questions provided the structure around which the evaluation was developed. The primary research question focused on the extent to which SMART/THRIVE programs improved and/or remediated math achievement among African American students. A substantive supplemental question 10Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 13 of 69 addressed the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African-American students. Additional attention was focused upon academically focused time and student engagement as well as parent, student, teacher and Algebra I teacher perceptions of the programs. The questions are listed below and are followed by a brief explanation of the areas addressed in the present evaluation. PRIMARY EVALUATION QUESTION Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? A treatment (2-levels)-control student pre-tesVpost-test designed was employed for this evaluation. The analysis controlled for pretest, gender, ethnicity and SES. Four types of Algebra I students were compared: a) no program/comparison, b) SMART program only, c) THRIVE program only and d) both SMART and THRIVE programs. The pretest data was collected from the 2003-2004 Math Benchmark Test and the posttest data was collected from the 2004-2005 Math Benchmark Test. Additional test information gathered for treatment-control comparison includes the 2004-2005 ITBS Math subtests and Algebra I End of Course Exams (EOC). Descriptive data from SMART and THRIVE participants were derived from pre- and post-test program exams. All standardized tests were administered by and throughout the Little Rock School District. Pre- and post- test program exams were administered through SMART and/or THRIVE. SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Attendance data from the SMART program of 2004 and the THRIVE program of 2005 were examined. In addition to descriptive information, the levels of participation were analyzed in light of student achievement. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? This question was addressed through classroom observations using an instrument focused on 26 research-based teaching strategies associated with increased academically focused instructional time and technology use within the classroom. Three additional math-specific items were designed to gather observation data about math-specific instructional practice. Five, random observation visits were conducted during the THRIVE program sessions. 11Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 14 of 69 3. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 were addressed through use of self-report surveys, including objective and open-ended items. Demographic data was also collected and analyzed. In addition, three student focus groups were created during which students perceptions of program strengths\nweaknesses and overall satisfaction were collected, and then analyzed. PARTICIPANTS Currently, SMART/THRIVE serves students from the following eight Little Rock School District middle schools: Cloverdale: 82% African-American student population\nDunbar: 61% African-American student population\nForest Heights: 77% African-American student population\nHenderson: 82% African-American student population\nMabievale: 81% African-American student population\nMann: 52% African-American student population\nPulaski Heights: 57% African-American student population\nSouthwest: 94% African- American student population. Of 274 eighth- and ninth-grade students who participated in SMART, Thrive, or both programs, matching district demographic data were available for 258 (94.2%). Tables 1 and 2 provide summaries of demographic and grade-level data for the various subsamples of SMART, THRIVE, and Comparison students in the study. These programs served a higher percentage of African American students than existed in the student population at large (69.0%): 88.0% of SMART students, 84.8% of Thrive students, and 89.6% of students attending both programs were African American. Of the 258 students with matching data, 125 attended SMART only, 66 attended Thrive only, and 67 attended both programs. Most students attending SMART only were ninth graders (83.2%), while the majority attending Thrive only were eighth graders (66.7%). About equal percentages of eighth graders (53.7%) and ninth graders (46.3%) attended both programs. Whereas the district percentage of female students in eighth and ninth grades was 50.1%, the 12Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 15 of 69 programs served a much larger proportion of females: 63.2%, 66.7%, and 59.7% for SMART, Thrive, and both programs, respectively. Table 1 Percentage of Students Served by Race: SMART^hrive and Comparison PROGRAM Am Indian Asian Black Hispanic Other White Total n Comparison 0.2 1.7 69.0 4.8 1.4 22.9 3726 SMART 0.0 0.0 88.0 0.8 4.0 7.2 125 THRIVE 0.0 6.1 84.8 3.0 0.0 6.1 66 BOTH 1.5 1.5 89.6 4.5 0.0 3.0 67 Total 0.3 1.7 70.2 4.6 1.4 21.8 3984 Note. Comparison group is all eighth and ninth grade students not served by either the SMART or Thrive programs. Table 2 Program Attended by Grade Level PROGRAM Total GRADE 08 09 Total Count % within PROGRAM Count % within PROGRAM Count % within PROGRAM Comparison 1727 SMART 21 THRIVE 44 BOTH 36 1828 46.3% 16.8% 66.7% 53.7% 45.9% 1999 104 22 31 2156 53.7% 83.2% 33.3% 46.3% 54.1% 3726 125 66 67 3984 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% EVALUATION DESIGN The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. A mixed-methods design was employed to address the research questions. Results are primarily descriptive in nature\ninferential statistics from achievement analyses are discussed. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected by trained observers. The observers administered and collected surveys to THRIVE teachers and students and conducted focus groups with students and SMART mentors. The majority of the time was spent observing 13Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 16 of 69 classrooms using the School Observation Measure (SOM) described below. Observers also conducted focus groups with students and SMART mentors and administered or distributed surveys to students, teachers. Algebra I teachers and parents. Additionally, achievement data from students participating in SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 was collected and analyzed by CREP. Details about all of the instruments and evaluation procedures are provided in subsequent sections INSTRUMENTATION To address the questions proposed in this mixed-methods evaluation, data from achievement tests, student records, classroom observations, surveys, and focus groups were collected. Six measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data\nstandardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. ACHIEVEMENT TEST SCORES Math Benchmark Test 2003 - 2004 and 2004 - 2005: The Benchmark Test is a state-mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiple-choice and open response items. Internal consistency reliability estimates, from the 2002-2004 administrations ranged from Cronbachs Alpha of .84 - .87.  End of Course Exams (EOC) 2005: The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterionreferenced test with questions that align with the goals and subject-specific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. Internal consistency reliability estimates, from the 2001-2004 administrations ranged from Cronbachs Alpha of .81 - .88.  ITBS Math Subtests\nThe Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and 14Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 17 of 69 computation. The ITBS test is a norm-referenced. The ITBS information is proprietary and, therefore, estimates of reliability and validity could not be obtained.  SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests\nThese curriculum-based tests measured students' ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems, graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. STUDENT RECORDS  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in comparison to achievement measures. CLASSROOM OBSERVATION MEASURES The data collection instruments for classroom observations were the School Observation Measure (SOM), including three math-specific items designed to better-tailor the instrument, and the Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA). The SOM and addendum items were designed to gather information about instructional practices and classroom activities. The RSCA was used to gather more detailed information about the level of student engagement during target activities throughout target observations. The instruments used for classroom observation are described below. School Observation Measure (SOM): School Observation Measure (SObP). The SOM was developed to determine the extent to which different common and alternative teaching practices (e.g., direct instruction, cooperative learning, student inquiry, experiential learning) are used by teachers (Ross, Smith \u0026amp; Alberg, 1999) in typical (non-evaluative) classroom contexts. During each recording session, notes were completed every 15 minutes in different classrooms for a total of four at the end of one, 60-minute observation period. Researchers objectively recorded the relative use, non-use and frequency of 26 observation items covering a variety of classroom practices. Additionally, researchers recorded the extent to which high academically focused instructional time and high student attention/interest were observed. At the conclusion of a one-hour targeted visit, a trained observer summarizes the frequency with which each of the strategies was observed, yielding one SOM Data Summary Form. The frequency is recorded via a 5-point rubric that 15Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 18 of 69 ranges from (0) Not Observed to (4) Extensively Observed. Two global items rate, respectively, the academically-focused instructional time and degree of student attention and interest. A reliability study by Lewis, Ross, and Alberg (1999) found that pairs of trained observers selected identical SOM categories 67% of the time and rated within one category 95% of the time. Math Addendum: Because the program under evaluation was specifically a mathematics program, three additional observations items unique to mathematics were developed. The items were written by a member of the research team with an Arkansas teaching certificate in mathematics based on the standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). The three items addressed the teachers actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. Each item was rated as 1 indicating not observed to 5 reflecting strong application. Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA): This Rubric (Ross \u0026amp; Lowther, 2002) is applied in conjunction with SOM visits to determine the quality and depth of teacher applications of selected strategies (e.g., cooperative learning, higher-order questioning, project-based learning, and technology as a learning tool). These strategies reflect emphasis on higher-order learning and attainment of deep understanding of content. Such learning outcomes seem consistent with those likely to be engendered by well-designed, real- world linked exercises, projects, or problems utilizing technology as a learning tool. Each item includes a two- part rating scale. The first is a four-point scale, with 1 indicating a very low level of application, and 4 representing a high level of application. The second is a Yes/No option to the question: Was technology used? with space provided to write a brief description of the technology use. The RSCA was completed as part of SOM observation periods. The RSCA reliability results indicate that observer ratings were within one category for 97% of the whole-school observations and for 90% of the targeted observations (Sterbinsky \u0026amp; Burke, 2004). A RSCA was completed at the end of each targeted classroom observation. SURVEYS Four surveys were developed by the evaluation team to collect data pertaining to the effectiveness of the SMART/THRIVE Program. The specific audiences around which the current evaluation focused were parents. Algebra I teachers currently teaching in Little Rock schools, SMART/THRIVE teachers, and students 16Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 19 of 69 currently enrolled in THRIVE. Items were designed to address both the primary and secondary research questions of the study and to glean open-ended perceptions from the four data collection groups. Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included as were open-ended questions about both programs. Program-specific items were presented to gain general and specific knowledge about both programs as separate entities. This also eliminated the need for respondents to complete two separate surveys. Each survey was divided into three sections. The first section was used to collect demographic information specific to each group. The second section was comprised of objective items specific to the research questions and each program (SMART and THRIVE), in the final section, the respondents were presented with four, open-ended questions which probed strategies, strengths, weaknesses and general additional comments for each program. Responses across all surveys were scored through the use of Likert- type ratings ranging from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5). Demographic information was also collected. Drafts of all surveys were presented at the evaluation team meetings in Little Rock and revisions were made from team participants suggestions. Sun/eys are found in Appendix A. FOCUS GROUPS Two sets of focus group protocols were developed by the evaluation team. Students were asked their perceptions of the effectiveness of the SMART/THRIVE program. SMART mentors also were asked their impressions of program effectiveness. Additionally, participants were also asked to report their perceptions of program impact. Student and Mentor protocols were similar, but tailored to their specific audience. Question drafts were presented at an evaluation team meeting in Little Rock and revisions were made from team participants' suggestions. PROCEDURES Data for this evaluation were collected during the spring of 2005. Targeted observations were conducted during late spring, 2005 using the SOM (including 3 math-specific addendum items) and RSCA instruments. Surveys, focus groups and program-designed achievement tests were also administered during this time period. The classroom observations were conducted during February and March, 2005. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different days. Student performance measures were administered in late spring, collection procedure. Table 3 summarizes the data 17Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 20 of 69 Table 3 Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Instrument Targeted Classroom Observations SOM RSCA Number Completed/Oata Source Total 5 19 Description Surveys SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent 10 SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE Algebra I Teacher 70 SMART/142 Student THRIVE Focus Groups Student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group 21 Participants 2 Participants Achievement Tests Attendance Data Math Benchmark Test 2003 - 2004 and 2004 - 2005 End of Course Exams ITBS SMART 2004 Attendance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 210 students 143 students Note: One SOM session was cut short due to scheduling, yielding 3 observations sheets and 3 FiSCAs. Observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During the observation period, note forms were completed every 15 minutes. Four* sets of observation notes were completed for each SOM. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Four RSCAs were completed for each SOM._____________ Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher surveys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers. THRIVE parent surveys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers. Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers._________________________ During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes.  Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol to conduct an on-site, 45- minute focus group with 2 of the 7 mentors. Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by independent entities and distributed throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Exams were taken during the Spring of 2005._______________________ Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students. Data were collected from program heads and sent to researchers. 18Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 21 of 69 ACHIEVEMENT TESTS End-of-course (EOC) Algebra I test scores were used as 2004-05 outcomes for g** grade students, with 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores used as a covariate. No covariate was available for 8' grade students, because no district or state tests were administered to graders in 2003-04. The End of Course Exams were administered at the end of the academic year to all students enrolled in Algebra I during the 2004-2005 school year. The ITBS exam was administered only to O' grade students, thus outcomes for this exam were available only for 9* graders. With no S grade scores available, 2003-2004 Benchmark scores were used for covariate comparisons. Additionally, curriculum-based pre- and post- program were administered on the first and last day of both programs. Both pre- and post-program-designed exams exams were comprised of 20 items, asking students to simplify, evaluate, graph, and solve equations. The SMART exams were geared to test pre-algebra and early algebra content and the THRIVE exams were designed to examine content expected of students completing Algebra I. The pre-program exams and post-program exams were identical. These exams are provided in Appendix B. CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS Trained observers completed a series of classroom visits to collect frequency data regarding observed instructional practices, use of technology and level of student engagement. Classroom teachers were advised that the observers would be present throughout the semester, but were instructed to deliver lessons as usual. A targeted procedure was used for the present study given that the observations were of the THRIVE sessions rather than of a school-wide, cross-categorical program. The majority of the observations were conducted by one researcher, with the second researcher observing for one SOM to examine inter-rater reliability. The inter-rater reliability for the joint observation was high\nobservers selected identical SOM categories 88% of the time and rated within one category 100% of the time. The standard SOM procedure involves evaluation of an entire school by visiting 10-12 randomly selected classrooms for 15 minutes each. However, the goal of this evaluation was to examine the practices within a single program, where all classrooms were participating in the same activities at the same times, not assess an entire school. Therefore, procedures were modeled from those used by Lowther, Ross, and Morrison (2003) in their examination a school laptop computer program. A total of five SOM observations were conducted. Both the RSCA and the Math Addendum items were completed at the same time. A total of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 22 of 69 19 RSCAs were completed because one observation session was interrupted by a scheduled class dismissal. SURVEYS The program teacher surveys were administered and collected by researchers on March 5, 2005 during a faculty meeting. Student surveys were administered and collected by researchers during a March 5 class. Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed via district mail. Parent surveys were distributed through students and collected by teachers before being sent to CREP for analysis. Additional parent surveys were administered and collected by a member of the research team at the student Math Fair. FOCUS GROUPS During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups, each of which lasted 45 minutes. The mentors were contacted individually by researchers via phone, mail and email. Two of the seven mentors responded and attended. The mentor focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. RESULTS The results of this evaluation are presented below and synthesized to address each research question in the Discussion section. These results are presented by measurement strategy\nhowever, the findings are synthesized across instruments to reflect each research question in the Discussion section of this report. SCHOOL OBSERVATION MEASURE (SOM) As noted previously, observers focused on the 26 instructional strategies provided in the SOM using a standard five-point rubric (0 =not observed, 1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, and 4 = extensively). The results are presented with a full, categorical breakdown in Table 4. Four strategies were observed occasionally to extensively at a frequency level of at least 75% or higher. These strategies include team teaching (100%), cooperative/collaborative learning (100%), use of higher-level questioning strategies (80%), and teacher acting as a coach/facilitator (100%). The data indicates that students were engaged in collaborative learning situations with high teacher support where they were asked to use problem solving and critical thinking skills to solve problems. Strategies that were observed occasionally 20Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 23 of 69 to extensively during 40-60% of the sessions included direct instruction (lecture), higher level instructional feedback (40%), experiential hands-on learning (40%), independent inquiry or research (40%) and student discussion (60%). Student discussion heavily dominated the instructional context (60% observed frequency) with teams of students working together to solve problems and propose new ideas. Some individual seat work and independent research was observed (40% each respectively), however, these frequently were noted to lead into a group-based activity in which individuals proposed ideas to a team that was used to create a corporate answer to problems proposed by the teachers. Sustained reading was observed in one classroom. Technology was heavily used (80%) as teachers relied upon graphing calculators and problem solving with technology as an integral part of the curriculum. Teachers demonstrated different ways to solve problems and/or work towards solutions via calculator and multi-media use. High academically focused time was observed extensively (80% of the time) as was high student engagement (in 60% of the observation sessions). Since the evaluation context was an Algebra I Saturday supplementary program with specific model parameters, some instructional strategies within the SOM were not observed. These strategies included individual tutoring, ability and multi-age groupings, work centers, integration of subject areas, project-based learning, independent seatwork, sustained writing/composition and systematic individual instruction. Generally, the aggregated data reflect efficient use of class time with teachers using a team teaching approach to deliver instruction to collaborative teams of students. The aforementioned math addendum items served to capture specific strategies used frequently among math teachers. Results from observations showed that THRIVE teachers frequently emphasized conceptual understanding over rote learning 60% of the time observed. Teachers also demonstrated connections between math and daily life frequently in at least 60% of the observations. One additional strategy of high interest was teachers cultivation of students confidence. flexibility and inventiveness in doing mathematics. This was observed frequently among 80% of the observations. None of the math-specific strategies were observed extensively. 21Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 24 of 69 Table 4 School Observation Measure (SOM) Data Summary for Little Rock-SMART/THRIVE Project N = 5 The extent to which each of the following was used or present in the school..._______ Instructional Orientation Direct instruction (lecture) Team teaching Cooperative/collaborative learning Individual tutoring (teacher, peer, aide, adult volunteer) Classroom Organization Ability groups Multi-age grouping Work centers (for individuals or groups) Instructional Strategies Higher-level instructional feedback (written or verbal) to enhance student learning Integration of subject areas (interdisciplinary/thematic units) Project-based learning Use of higher-level questioning strategies Teacher acting as a coach/facilitator Parent/community involvement in learning activities Student Activities Independent seatwork (self-paced worksheets, individual assignments) Experiential, hands-on learning Systematic individual instruction (differential assignments geared to individual needs) Sustained writing/composition (self-selected or teacher-generated topics) Sustained reading Independent inquiry/research on the part of students Student discussion Technology Use Computer for instructional delivery (e.g. CAI, drill \u0026amp; practice) Technology as a learning tool or resource (e.g., Internet research, spreadsheet or database creation, multi-media, CD Rom, Laser disk) Assessment Performance assessment strategies Student self-assessment (portfolios, individual record books) Summary Items High academically focused class time High level of student attention/interest/engagement Percent None Percent Rarely Percent Occasionally Percent Percent Frequently Extensively 20.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 20.0 0.0 80.0 100.0 20.0 100.0 100.0 8Q.0 40.0 40.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Wole\nOne SOM is comprised of approximately 8 classroom visits. 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 60.0 22Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 25 of 69 RUBRIC FOR STUDENT-CENTERED ACTIVITIES (RSCA^ The RSCA results reflect the percentage of observed sessions in which selected strategies are observed at least once. The quality of the application and the percentage of sessions in which technology was used with the observed strategy are also recorded. A descriptive summary of the RSCA results is presented in Table 5. The RSCA results suggest that the level of application with which THRIVE program teachers applied certain instructional practices, particularly with regard to cooperative learning and higher-level questioning strategies was high. Additionally, students evidenced appropriate use of technology (calculators, multimedia, and spreadsheets) in self-directed activities to create new knowledge. The most notable area of technology use was among cooperative learning groups, where students collaboratively utilized multimedia, calculators and graphing applications to solve problems\nteachers often helped direct collaborative groups. Project-based learning was not observed and although student discussion, experiential hands on learning, and independent research were applied, the level of application was limited or somewhat limited without technology use. Additionally, aggregate results suggest that technology was used in more than a third of the instances during which 5/7 remaining student-centered activities were observed and in over 25% of the instances during which 6/7 remaining activities or strategies were applied. 23Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 26 of 69 Table 5 Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA) N = 19 Student-Centered Activities Not Limited Somewhat Somewhat Cooperative Learning Project-Based Learning Higher-Level Questioning Strategies Experiential Hands-on Learning Independent Inqulry/Ftesearch Student Discussion Students as Producers of Knowledge Using Observed Application Limited Strong Application Application Strong Application Technology In Use * 8.7 13.0 8.7 21.7 47.8 60.9 100.0 26.1 56.5 56.5 56.5 30.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 8.7 17.4 8.7 Technoiogy Percentages Indicating Observed Levels of Application Rating Scale: 1- limited application\n4=strong application 30.4 39.1 4.3 26.1 4.3 0.0 8.7 21.7 21.7 30.4 17.4 39.1 13.0 39.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 39.1 30.4 * See addendum description of technology use SCHOOL OBSERVATION SUMMARY Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the observations revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state- designed SLEs. The most striking result was the extent to which team teaching and collaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was noted among observed sessions. During the teaching sessions that were observed, the Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning. Furthermore, this practice facilitated frequent instances of promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instnjction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. 24Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 27 of 69 SURVEY RESULTS Four surveys (Algebra I Teacher, Student, Parent, SMART/THRIVE Teacher) were administered in late March, 2005. Results for each characteristics of the respondents demographic section of the surveys. of the four instruments were examined independently. Demographic are representative\nhowever, not all respondents completed the Additionally, the total number of respondents to THRIVE items varied from the total number of SMART respondents across questionnaires. Demographic differences are described for each group. Finally, item percentages across surveys did not always total 100% because of missing input from some of the respondents (i.e., there were questions to which some people did not respond). PROGRAM PARTICIPANT SURVEY THRIVE A total of 142 students responded to items pertaining to THRIVE and 70 students responded to items pertaining to SMART'. Of the 138 THRIVE respondents who reported their ethnicity, 77% specified African- American, 7% specified Multi-Ethnic, and 4.2% specified Asian. The remaining categories of Caucasian (3.5%), Hispanic (2.8%), and Other (2.1%) were specified less frequently. A total of 63.4% of the respondents were female\n35.9% of the respondents were male. Of the 70 students responding to SMART questionnaire items and specifying demographic information, 38.6% were female and 61.4% were male. Regarding ethnicity, 82.9% of the SMART respondents specified African American, 4.3% specified Caucasian or Hispanic respectively, 2.9% specified Multi-Ethnic and 1.4% specified Other or Asian. Table 6 contains the results for THRIVE and SMART objective survey items. These results are summarized in text below. Summaries of the open ended questions are shown in subsequent Tables. The overall trend in response types was positive\nfifty percent or more students indicated agreement or strong agreement across all items. Well over eighty percent of students responding to the survey reported that team competitions made THRIVE classes more fun. Over seventy-five percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE made Algebra more enjoyable and instilled confidence in doing well on the Algebra Benchmark Exam. Over sixty percent of student respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE improved their self-confidence about math, helped them feel comfortable asking questions in THRIVE class. Because some students participating in the THRIVE program did not participate in SMART during the previous summer, differences between respondent numbers were expected. 25Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 28 of 69 and facilitated problem solving through calculator use. A total of 66.6% of respondents indicated that THRIVE teachers helped them with problems they were having in their regular algebra class. At least one half (50.0%) of the students responding to the survey indicated that THRIVE helped improve their algebra grades and helped them understand how to apply algebra concepts in real life. In contrast to the positive trend in responses across items, two areas in which some students showed disagreement were related to generalization and application. This is somewhat consistent with responses noted within the open ended portion of the student survey where students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. Additionally, more students responded neutrally to items pertaining to content, grades and application when compared to responses for items related to motivation, fun and self-confidence. Table 6 Student Survey - THRIVE N = 142 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. THRIVE items Because of THRIVE, I have learned how to use a calculator to help solve algebra problems. THRIVE makes Algebra more enjoyable. THRIVE has helped me get good grades in Algebra. I think I will do well on the Algebra Benchmark Exam because of THRIVE. In THRIVE, I have learned how algebra can be used in real life. THRIVE has made me more confident about math. My THRIVE teacher helps me with problems I am having in my algebra class. I feel comfortable asking questions in THRIVE class. Team competitions make THRIVE classes fun. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 67.6 77.5 50.0 78.9 55.6 66.2 66.2 74.7 87.3 Percent Neutral 23.9 20.4 40.9 16.2 33.8 24.7 25.4 21.1 6.3 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 8.5 2.1 8.5 4.2 10.6 7.8 8.5 4.2 2.8 26Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 29 of 69 SMART Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement for items pertaining to the SMART portion of survey were consistently above 75%. Of the 70 respondents, over 85% agreed or strongly agreed that SMART helped prepare them for Algebra I in the fall, and 80% agreed or strongly agreed that SMART made algebra more fun. Seventy-eight percent agreed or strongly agreed that the SMART program helped them remember math skills from the previous year. Students agreed or strongly agreed that they were motivated to go to their SMART classes and that the program helped them apply math to solve real-life problems across 75% of the surveys. Fewer students indicated neutral or negative responses for the SMART survey items than noted among THRIVE survey responses. Of those that indicated disagreement or strong disagreement. the item noted most frequently (4.3%) was related to application (We learned how to use math to solve reallife problems.). Overall, the trend towards agreement with items probing the attributes of the programs was positive. Table 7 presents detailed results for the SMART student survey. Table 7 Student Survey -SMART N = 70 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. SMART Items SMART helped me remember the math skills I learned last school year. SMART made algebra more fun. In SMART, we learned how to use math to solve real-life problems. I was motivated to go to my SMART class during the summer. Because of SMART, I was prepared to begin Algebra I in the fall. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 78.6 Percent Neutral 18.6 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 2.9 81.4 75.7 75.7 88.6 14.3 15.7 18.6 5.7 1.4 4.3 1.4 1.4 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES THRIVE students had an opportunity to respond to four, open-ended questions as part of the survey. Student impressions of the SMART program were polled across all students even though SMART was not in session and not all students participated in it during the previous summer. SMART and THRIVE were evaluated separately using the same questions to preserve the integrity of their differences. Student responses are summarized below. 27Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 30 of 69 Question 1: Students were asked to comment on what they liked about the THRIVE program. The majority of responses reflected an appreciation of the programs use of competition and a sense that the program made math more fun/enjoyable. Additional comments suggested that students enjoyed having a program that allowed for review and expansion of concepts taught in the regular Algebra I classroom. Students also noted that they enjoyed the teachers and felt comfortable asking for clarification when necessary. Additionally, snacks and rewards were notably cited as positive influences of THRIVE. Table 8 summarizes what students liked about THRIVE. TABLE 8 What do you like about THRIVE? Description Makes math fun Uses competition/games in Provides expansion/review of math concepts Clarifies/Remediates confusing concepts Teachers are good/likeable Snacks People/friends in THRIVE classes Class size/Format Money/Rewards NA - responses did not pertain to question Enjoy using a calculator Provides a head start for following week in class Improves self-confidence/provides comfortable place to learn Class Time/Format TOTAL  Frequency 42 37 18 17 17 14 11 8 7 1 4 3 3 2 190 Percentage 22% 19% 9% 9% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 100% Question 2: When asked what they would change about the THRIVE program, the overwhelming majority of students responded that they would make no changes. Students who did comment on needed changes mostly cited a later start time or a more compressed time period (e.g., two hours rather than four hours) as potential prospects. Non-specific time changes (e.g., change time, time, different time) were also noted among open-ended comments but coded separately due to the large number of students commenting on previously cited specifics about THRIVE hours. Table 9 provides an illustration of student comments. The miscellaneous category captured unique comments made by individual students (e.g., field trips, guest speakers, PE). 28Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 31 of 69 TABLE 9 Whaf would you change about THRIVE? Description No change Less time Later start time Miscellaneous Class format/more varied activities Longer breaks Non-specific time change Snacks/lunch Enhance competition More time More peers/neighborhood school Rewards Earlier time Teacher changes TOTAL Frequency 57 17 14 11 10 8 8 8 5 4 3 3 2 2 152 Percentage 38% 11% 9% 7% 7% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 100% Question 3'. Students were asked to comment on how THRIVE has helped them over the course of the semester. Most comments suggested that THRIVE helped students enhance comprehension of general Algebraic concepts. Many students also indicated that THRIVE helped improve their grades and improved their understanding of how to use a calculator to solve and graph equations. Additionally, students' comments suggested that THRIVE reinforced specific concepts (e.g., graphing equations with polynomials) and made the students feel that they were staying ahead in weekly Algebra classes. Of 150 responses, three indicated that THRIVE was not helpful\nnone indicated that it was detrimental. Table 10 summarizes the results. TABLE 10 If THRIVE has helped you, how has it helped you? Description Enhanced comprehension of Algebra Improved grades Use of calculator Reinforced specific concepts in Algebra Helps stay ahead in math Builds confidence/makes math more positive Miscellaneous (individual answers) Negative-Did not help TOTAL Frequency 63 20 18 16 14 8 8 3 150 Percentage 42% 13% 12% 11% 9% 5% 5% 2% 100% 29Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 32 of 69 Questions about SMART were analyzed. Response rates across SMART questions, although somewhat different, do not vary significantly. Question 4: When asked to identify the most appealing aspects of SMART, most comments were positive, yet nonspecific in nature. Examples included responses that alluded to liking everything about the program or how the program helped me (in general). A number of students (13%) noted that SMART prepared them for math in the fall and reduced anxiety when entering first year Algebra. Calculator use and team competition garnered notably high response rates (13% and 12% respectively). Some students made specific comments about the positive influence of the SMART teachers and others made comments about rewards delivered through the program. Response categories are provided in Table 11. TABLE 11 What do you like about SMART? Description Nonspecific positive responses (e.g.. Everything: How it helped me) More prepared for math/ reduced anxiety Using the calculator Team competitions The teachers Reinforcement and rewards Social aspects/visiting with peers from other schools The snacks Games and content delivery NA (e.g., I did not go to SMART\nI do not know) Format/time/class size TOTAL ~ Frequency 31 11 11 10 5 5 5 3 2 2 1 86 Percentage 36% 13% 13% 12% 6% 6% 6% 3% 2% 2% 1% 100% Question 5: Students also provided information about what aspects of the SMART program they would change. Over sixty percent of the responses favored no change. Of the remaining responses, 23% indicated a time change as appropriate. Of those, the large majority of comments suggested a later starting time rather than a reduced time period. One student noted a desire to reduce the amount of time spent at SMART. A few students who did not participate in SMART simply indicated such\nno additional comments were recorded among these respondents. The remaining responses indicated a desire to enhance the program by adding team competitions, extending the time during which SMART was available, and providing more applied skills for use in everyday situations. Data are summarized in Table 12. 30Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 33 of 69 TABLE 12 What would you change about the SMART program? Response No change Time Snacks NA (I did not go to SMART\nI like Math) More team competitions More applied skills Extend time/day and/or hours TOTAL Frequency 41 15 3 3 2 1 1 66 Percentage 62% 23% 5% 5% 3% 2% 2% 100% Question 6: When asked about how SMART helped students, the ovenwhelming majority of comments identified the programs purpose in preparing students for Algebra I as most important. Many responses also indicated the use of a calculator as instrumental in helping students solve Algebra problems. Additionally, students noted that SMART helped improve their grades and built confidence in math. TABLE 13 If SMART helped you, describe how. Response Made me feel prepared Use of calculator Built confidence in math Improved grades NA(I did not go to SMART\nI liked THRIVE) Reinforced specific concepts Miscellaneous (I would like field trips) Increased engagement/interest TOTAL Frequency 41 11 6 6 3 1 1 1 70 Percentage 59% 16% 9% 9% 4% 1% 1% 1% 100% PARENT SURVEY THRIVE A total of 35 parents responded to survey items pertaining to THRIVE. Of those, 57% were female and 40% were male. A total of 80% of parent respondents indicated that their child was African American, 8.6% specified Asian and 2.9% specified Caucasian, Hispanic and Other respectively. No parental respondents specified Multi-Ethnic as the ethnicity of their child. 31Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 34 of 69 Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement were consistently above 80% across all survey items. Overall, parents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE was a good program (94%), that they felt comfortable having their child attend classes on Saturdays (91.4%) and that they felt teachers in the program helped their children feel successful in math (91.4%). The neutral responses that were noted were made in response to items pertaining to childrens attitudes about math and improvement in grades. No negative responses to the items were reported. Table 14 provides a summary of the responses. Table 14 Parent Survey - THRIVE N = 35 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. THRIVE items The teachers in this program make my child feel that he/she can succeed. Because of this program, my child is more motivated to complete algebra homework. This program has helped improve my child's attitude about math. I am comfortable having my child attend classes on Saturdays. Because of this program, I have seen an improvement in my child's Algebra I grades. Overall, I think this is a good program. Percent Strongly Agree/Agree 91.4 88.6 82.9 91.4 80.0 94.3 Percent Percent Strongly Neutral Disagree/ 5.7 8.6 17.1 5.7 14.3 2.9 Disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percent Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SMART A slightly smaller number of parents (21) responded to the five survey items pertaining to SMART. Of those, 61.9% were female and 33.3% were male. Eighty-five percent of parental respondents cited their childs ethnicity as African-American. The remaining respondents indicated Asian (4.8%) or Other (4.8%) as their childs ethnicity. Ninety percent of parent respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement when asked whether SMART did a good job of preparing children for Algebra I in the fall and improving childrens perception that they could succeed in math. Slightly over 85% of respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement with items related to whether SMART improved their childs attitude about math and whether they felt comfortable sending their children to classes during the summer. A total of 76% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that 32Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 35 of 69 the program classes were easy for their children to attend. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Of those that responded neutrally, the highest number (14.3%) were noted for the item pertaining to whether SMART had improved attitudes about math. No parents indicated negative responses for any of the items. Table 15 Parent Survey - SMART N = 21 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. SMART Items Because of this program, my child felt like he/she could succeed in Math. The summer classes were easy for my child to attend. This program helped improve my child's attitude about Math. I am comfortable having my child attend classes during the summer. This program did a good job of preparing my child for beginning Algebra I in the fall. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 90.5 76.2 85.7 85.7 90.5 Percent Neutral 4.8 4.8 14.3 0.0 4.8 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percent Don't Know 0.0 4.8 0.0 4.8 0.0 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES Question 7\nWhen asked to provide their impressions of THRIVE, many parents responses described it as a motivating math program (19%) targeting childrens math skills. Numerous comments suggested that parents characterize THRIVE as a program that improves general math skills (19%) and/or focuses on problem solving and/or critical thinking (15%). A number of parents comments also reflected an awareness of the programs use of motivating games and competition to foster interest in math (15%). The balance of the comments were positive and reflected an awareness of THRIVE as a supplemental alternative to the weekly Algebra I curriculum. 33Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 36 of 69 TABLE 16 Please tell us your impression of the THRIVE program. What do you see as taking place during the sessions? Description Helps child feel fulfilled/motivated about math Helps child improve math skills Focuses critical thinking and problem solving Integrates games and fun into math Non-specific positive commendation Practical application Provides individualized tutoring provides review of school curriculum Class format: small groups and team competition TOTAL Frequency 5 5 4 4 2 2 2 2 1 27 Percentage 19% 19% 15% 15% 7% 7% 7% 7% 4% 100% Question 2 and Question 3: Questions 2 and 3 addressed parents opinions of THRIVE. One third of the comments made about parents positive opinions indicated that it was motivating. Parents also noted that they liked how THRIVE provided additional help (17%) and made efforts to improve specific math skills (12%). Some parents reported global positive experiences and satisfaction with THRIVE (14%). Table 17 provides additional data regarding what parents liked about the program. Regarding parents' opinions about whether aspects of THRIVE should be changed, 29% 'O recommended no change and/or responded positively about the program. Of the comments requesting change, one third recommended expanding the breadth and length of the program. Specifically, these parents made note that more time (23%) should be allocated for THRIVE and that more students (10%) should be involved. Table 18 provides additional information about isolated comments for changing THRIVE. 34Case 4:82-cv-00866-\\/VRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 37 of 69 TABLE 17 What did you like about the THRIVE program? Description Motivating Provides additional help Non-specific positive commendation Improve math skills Class size, time, format Learning new strategies Games Parent gatherings Prepares for benchmark exam Teaches calculator skills_________ TOTAL ' Frequency 14 7 6 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 42 Percentage 33% 17% 14% 12% 7% 7% 2% 2% 2% 2% 100% TABLE 18 If anything, what would you change about the THRIVE program? Description No change Extend time/meet more frequently Expand program to more students More challenge Expand into summer Expand program to after school Get credit Later start Measurement of progress More communication between parents and teachers More funding More hands on learning More structure Transportation__________ TOTAL Frequency 9 7 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31 Percentage 29% 23% 10% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 100% Two questions probed the operational aspects of the THRIVE program. Regarding notification and enrollment, parents comments indicated that their childrens schools (34%) and teachers (26%) were the primary sources of information about THRIVE. Children reportedly were additional sources of information (11%). A substantial percentage of parents also indicated that their childs participation in SMART the previous summer served as a source of information about THRIVE. 35Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 38 of 69 The majority of respondents suggested that transportation was not a problem. Of the four of respondents who viewed transportation as problematic, one indicated that bus services were not provided in her area. Two respondents noted that bus services were provided, but were inconsistent. Of the 28 respondents who did not identify transportation as a problem, none elaborated as to whether or not their children made use of the buses that were provided. Tables 19 and 20 provide frequency and percentage data for these questions. TABLE 19 How did you find out about THRIVE? Description Child's school Child's teacher Child SMART Child's friend District Math programs Mailings, flyers PTA Respondent is a THRIVE Teacher School Counselor TOTAL Frequency 12 9 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 35 Percentage 34% 26% 11% 9% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 100% TABLE 20 IVas transportation a problem? Please explain. Description No Yes. Bus provided, but inconsistent No. Weekend no problem Yes. Yes. No bus provided TOTAL Frequency 27 2 1 1 1 32 Percentage 84% 6% 3% 3% 3% 100% Parents also had an opportunity to respond to questions regarding the SMART summer program. These questions were exactly the same as those asked about the THRIVE program. Bearing in mind that fewer students participated in SMART than in THRIVE, it was expected that fewer parents would respond to 36Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 39 of 69 questions regarding SMART. Three respondents indicated that their child did not participate in SMART\nthese three respondents did not answer the remaining questions. Parents impressions of the SMART program were positive. The majority of parents responding indicated that the program exposed their children to a variety of methods for solving Algebra problems (24%) and improved their motivation (19%) tor math. Five parents made very general positive comments (14%) about the program and/or indicated that the teachers were integral in motivating students (10%) to learn about Algebra. TABLE 21 Please tell us your impression of the SMART program. Description Use of variety of teaching methods Improving motivation for math NA (response indicated that child did not participate in SMART) Non-specific positive commendation Teachers making math enjoyable Description of time spent in program Improving grades in math Motivating Teachers making math enjoyable TOTAL Frequency 5 4 Percentage 24% 19% 14% 3 2 1 1 1 1 21 14% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 100% 3 Parents were asked to comment on whether or not they would recommend changes being made to the program. Results suggest that many parents desire to extend the duration of the program (43%) and would like to expand the program to more students (14%). The remaining 43% of respondents indicated that they would make no changes. Table 22 provides an illustration of the comments regarding change. TABLE 22 What, if anything, would you change about SMART? Description Extend duration (weeks) No change Expand to more students TOTAL Frequency 6 6 2 14 Percentage 43% 43% 14% 100% 37Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 40 of 69 Parents were asked how they found out about SMART and whether or not transportation posed a problem for them to examine operational needs of the program. Results from these questions are summarized in Tables 23 and 24. The majority of parents indicated that they were notified about SMART through their childs school (59%). Of these respondents, a specific person (e.g., general math specialist) or department was noted as a source. Adult peers (12%) also were among sources of information notably contributing to disseminating information about SMART. Five respondents (30%) indicated that specific school personnel notified them about SMART\nof these, one was a SMART teacher. Transportation was not viewed as problematic. Of the respondents, three provided more specific information about how they traveled to and/or from SMART. None of the respondents indicated negativity toward bus or car. TABLE 23 How did you find out about the SMART program? Description Frequency Childs school Friends of parent Math Specialist at Childs School Childs teacher LRSD Math Dept Respondent is a SMART Teacher TOTAL 10 2 2 1 1 1 17 Percentage 59% 12% 12% 6% 6% 6% 100% TABLE 24 IVas transportation a problem? Description Frequency No No. Bus Provided No. Parents Drove TOTAL 13 2 1 16 Percentage 81% 13% 6% 100% 38Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 41 of 69 SMART/THRIVE TEACHER SURVEY THRIVE A total of 23 THRIVE teachers were asked to provide opinions and perceptions of SMART and THRIVE. Of those, 18 completed objective survey items for the THRIVE program. Seventeen of the respondents reported their ethnicity. Over sixty percent of these respondents specified their ethnicity as African-American\nthe remaining respondents identified their ethnicity as Caucasian (27%) or Other (5%). Regarding experience, the majority of the teachers responding to the survey had between 6-10 years of teaching experience and had worked with the THRIVE program for 3 or more years. Over 30% of respondents indicated having 1-2 years experience with THRIVE. Over 25% indicated having 5 or more years of experience with THRIVE. Teachers' responses overwhelmingly favored agreement or strong agreement with items pertaining to positive attributes among professional development, resources/materials, methodology and instructional delivery within the THRIVE program. Two items for which some teachers indicated neutrality were related to the extent to which they felt the program had improved their own ability or their students ability to use calculators. Overall, however, teachers responses suggest an overall positive perception of the program. This is consistent with the opinions shared from open-ended questions designed to glean similar information. Table 25 presents summary information from the objective items. 39Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 42 of 69 Table 25 SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey - THRIVE N = 18 Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following items: 1. I have received adequate professional development 2. 3. to implement this program. I have a thorough understanding of the objectives of this program. The students enjoy the planned activities. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 100.0 Percent Neutral 0.0 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 Percent Dont Know 0.0 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The facility at which the classes are held is adequate. Materials (books, copies, equipment) needed for this program are readily available. The daily briefing and debriefing sessions are valuable. The program has improved my ability to use graphing calculators. The program has improved my students ability to use graphing calculators. The program is aligned with state and district math standards. The co-teacher (THRIVE) and Mentor (SMART) approaches are effective instructional methods for teaching and reinforcing Algebra concepts. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.4 94.4 94.4 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SMART Of the 18 surveys collected from THRIVE teachers, ten contained completed items pertaining to SMART. Demographic data from all ten suggests that this cohort consisted of teachers with more than 5 years of teaching experience. The majority of respondents reported between 6-10 years experience (60%). Teachers with 11-15 years experience comprised 20% of the respondent group and teachers with 16 or more years comprised the remaining 20% of the group. The majority of respondents indicated having four or more years experience with THRIVE (70%) and all respondents indicated having 4 or more years with SMART (100%). With regard to ethnicity, the majority of respondents specified African American (70%). The remaining 30% specified Caucasian. Respondents indicated 100% agreement or strong agreement across eight of the ten items. For two items probing teachers perceptions of how SMART improved their ability or their students ability to use graphing calculators, total agreement was noted among 90% of the surveys. The remaining 10% of the survey 40Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 43 of 69 respondents indicated neutral responses for these two items. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement for any of the items. Table 26 summarizes this data. Table 26 SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey - SMART N = 10 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following items: I have received adequate professional development to implement this program. I have a thorough understanding of the objectives of this program. The students enjoy the planned activities. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 100.0 Percent Neutral 0.0 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 Percent Don't Know 0.0 10. The facility at which the classes are held is adequate. Materials (books, copies, equipment) needed for this program are readily available. The daily briefing and debriefing sessions are valuable. The program has improved my ability to use graphing calculators. The program has improved my students' ability to use graphing calculators. The program is aligned with state and district math standards. The co-teacher (THRIVE) and Mentor (SMART) approaches are effective instructional methods for teaching and reinforcing Algebra concepts. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES In addition to closed-ended items, THRIVE Teachers also had an opportunity to respond to four open- ended questions as part of the survey. The open ended items also gave the teachers who were involved with the SMART program an opportunity to provide comments regarding the program from the prior summer. A summary of these questions and respective responses are listed below. Question 1. In response to the question, What SMART/THRIVE strategies do you use in your classroom? teachers listed a total of 41 distinct responses. The most frequently made comments related to strategies pertaining to games (29%) and calculator applications (22%). Strategies relating to cooperative learning, computer applications and general strategies were also noted. The results are found in Table 27. 41Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 44 of 69 TABLE 27 What SMART/THRIVE strategies do you use in your classroom? Description Games Calculator applications Cooperative learning Specific Strategies (warm-up/review) Computer applications (beyond calculators) General strategies TOTAL Frequency 12 9 9 7 2 2 41 Percentage 29% 22% 22% 17% 5% 5% 100% Question 2: In response to the question, What are the most/least beneficial aspects to the professional development component of SMART and/or THRIVE?, teachers listed a total of 24 responses. Beneficial aspects of the professional development portion of the SMART and THRIVE programs most frequently noted were: new strategies, opportunities to collaborate with other teachers, hands-on application, co-teaching component, and application in regular algebra class. Three comments were made about the least beneficial aspects of the program\nall three noted time constraints as a major limitation. See Table 28 for a summary. TABLE 28 What are the most/least beneficial aspects to the professional development component of SMART and/or THRIVE? Description Hands-on application Opportunities to collaborate with other teachers Application in regular algebra class New strategies Time is an issue TOTAL Frequency 7 5 5 4 3 24 Percentage 29 21 21 17 13 100% Question 3: A total of 14 comments were made in response to the question, 'If you were a teacher tor SMART during the past summer, are there any additional comments that you would like to make about the SMART Program? The overwhelming majority of comments cited SMART as a strong pre-algebra preparation program. Additionally, teachers noted the following comments about SMART: reinforcing concepts, fostering technology awareness, improving teacher relationships, and preparing students for 42Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 45 of 69 algebra. Two teachers noted a desire to expand and continue the SMART program. See Table 29 for a summary. TABLE 29 If you were a teacher for SMART during the past summer, are there any additional comments that you would like to make about the SMART Program? Description Reinforcing concepts Preparing for Algebra Expansion Fostering teacher relationships Fostering technology awareness TOTAL Frequency 6 4 2 1 1 14 Percentage 43% 29% 14% 7% 7% 100% ALGEBRA I TEACHER SURVEY SMART Demographic information from the Algebra I Teacher survey show that of the twenty-five Algebra I teachers who responded to six survey items pertaining to SMART 68% were female and 28% were male. A total of 44% of respondents specified their ethnicity as Caucasian. Thirty-six percent specified African American and 12% specified Multi-Ethnic. The remaining categories of Asian and Hispanic were not specified by any of the respondents. The number of respondents indicating that they had worked for SMART or THRIVE in the past comprised 44% percent of the total group\nfifty-two percent indicated not having worked with either program. Few respondents (8%) reported having fewer than 5 years teaching experience and the majority of respondents (total 56%) reported having 11 or more years of experience. In contrast to response trends from the parents, students and THRIVE teachers surveyed, Algebra I teachers' responses to SMART items showed slightly more varied distribution across the survey scale (Strongly Agree/Agree-Neutral-Strongly Disagree/Disagree-Dont Know). Over 80% of the teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that SMART positively impacted student achievement in math and effectively enabled students to use technology to solve algebra problems. Eighty percent of respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement when asked to determine the extent to which they agreed that SMART helped students become more confident of their abilities in algebra. A little over 72% of responses indicated agreement or strong agreement with the statement that SMART offered strategies that could be used in the 43Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 46 of 69 Algebra I classroom and 65% agreed or strongly agreed that SMART offered strategies that could be used in the Algebra I classroom. When asked to judge whether SMART had helped close the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students, just over 48% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed. Eight percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement, while 24% remained neutral and 20% indicated that they did not know. Table 30 Algebra I Teacher Survey - SMART N = 25 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The program has... Positively impacted student achievement in math Helped close the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students Helped students become more confident of their abilities in Algebra Effectively enabled students to use technology to solve Algebra problems Facilitates students' meaningful understanding of algebraic concepts Offered me strategies that I use in my own classroom Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 88.0 Percent Neutral 4.0 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 Percent Don't Know 8.0 48.0 80.0 88.0 72.0 68.0 24.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 0.0 16.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 12.0 8.0 16.0 THRIVE Among responses from the 33 Algebra I teachers who responded to the six THRIVE items, 66.7% were female and 24.2% were male. Reports of teaching experience and experience with THRIVE and SMART were comparable to those noted among the group responding to SMART. The demographic distribution of this group was also similar to that noted among SMART respondents (39.4% Caucasian, 36.4% African American, and 12.1% Multi-Ethnic). Over 84% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE effectively enabled students to solve problems using technology. Eighty-one percent agreed that THRIVE positively impacted student achievement in math. Over 75% agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE facilitated conceptual understanding of algebra and helped students become more confident in Algebra. Seventy-two percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE offered strategies that could be used in the Algebra I classroom. The same percentage of respondents (48%) as those responding to the same item about SMART agreed or 44Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 47 of 69 strongly agreed that THRIVE had closed the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students. A total of 18% remained neutral about this item, 6.1% disagreed or strongly disagreed and 24.2% indicated that they did not know. Table 31 Algebra I Teacher Survey - THRIVE N = 33 Percent Percent 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The program has... Positively impacted student achievement in math Helped close the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students Helped students become more confident of their abilities in Algebra Effectively enabled students to use technology to solve Algebra problems Facilitates students meaningful understanding of algebraic concepts Offered me strategies that I use in my own classroom Strongly Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 81.8 48.5 75.8 84.9 75.8 72.7 Neutral Disagree/ Disagree Percent Dont Know 3.0 0.0 12.1 18.2 6.1 24.2 9.1 0.0 9.1 6.1 3.0 0.0 3.0 6.1 9.1 12.1 9.1 12.1 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES To further evaluate teachers perceptions of SMART and THRIVE, four open-ended questions were administered to all district Algebra I teachers, regardless of whether or not they were directly involved in the programs. Tables 32 and 33 illustrate how SMART and THRIVE programs are perceived among ail Algebra I teachers polled in Little Rock. Since not all of the Algebra I teachers polled were SMART/THRIVE teachers, it was important to gather information about teachers awareness of both programs. Question 1: A total of 50 comments were made when teachers were asked to briefly describe their understanding of the SMART program. SMART was cited as a strong pre-algebra preparation program by the large majority of respondents. Algebra I teachers comments reflected a general understanding of the nature and target population, and several noted specific elements about its focus on promoting understanding Algebra I concepts through use of technology, particularly among at-risk populations. Results are summarized in Table 32. 45Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 48 of 69 Table 32 Please briefly describe your understanding of the SMART Program. Description Program designed to provide a preview of Algebra I concepts and build math confidence Program designed to integrate calculators Frequency 20 Percentage 40% 10 20% Identified time (day) and location of program Program designed to motivate students and make Algebra I fun Identified program for grades 8 and 9 only 14% 8% 8% Program designed to target at-risk children Program designed to address ARK and ACTAAP goals___________________________ TOTAL 6% 4% 50 100% 7 4 4 3 2 Question 2: When Algebra I teachers were asked to briefly describe their understanding of the THRIVE program, a total of 55 comments were made. THRIVE was most frequently characterized as a supplement to the Algebra I curriculum designed to bolster concepts taught in school. Teachers also generally described THRIVE program's time (Saturdays), location and relationship to SMART. Additionally, Algebra I teachers made comments about the motivational nature of the program as well as its purpose in reinforcing principles for various standardized tests (e.g.. Benchmark and ACCTAP). Results are summarized in Table 33. 46Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 49 of 69 TABLE 33 Please briefly describe your understanding of the THRIVE program. Description Program designed to supplement Algebra I concepts and build math confidence Identified time (day) and location of program Frequency 23 Percentage 42% 10 18% Related to or a follow-up to SMART Program designed to motivate students and make Algebra I fun Program designed to address standardized Benchmark tests, ARK and ACTAAP goals Program designed to integrate calculators 10 18% 9% 7% 4% Program designed to target at-risk children TOTAL 2% 55 100% 5 4 2 1 Questions 3 (Table 34) and 4 (Table 35). Questions three and four were designed to gather information about teachers perceptions of effective and ineffective components of SMART and THRIVE. These questions did not differentiate between the two programs. Responses suggested that teachers evaluative open-ended comments for both programs were similar. Responses to question 3 yielded complimentary commentary describing the efficacious elements of the programs. Question 4 yielded comments describing the programs shortcomings. TABLE 34 What do you see as the most effective aspects of the SMART and/or THRIVE programs? Description Enriches Algebra concepts in authentic contexts Integrates calculatorAechnology use Reinforces Algebra concepts Fosters motivation and integrates fun into teaching Fosters confidence and success Enhances peer relationships/collaborative learning Enhances professional development Provides tutoring for children having trouble with Algebra I Helps prepare for standardized tests Emphasizes co-teaching TQTAL Frequency 10 10 8 5 4 2 1 1 1 1 43 Percentage 23% 23% 19% 12% 9% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 100 47Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 50 of 69 TABLE 35 What do you see as the feast effective aspects or areas in need of improvement? Description Need to serve broader group of students Over-reliance on calculator More funding needed No direct evaluation of the program (grades) Enrollment/recruitment Too much emphasis on games Space TOTAL Frequency 9 4 3 2 2 2 1 23 Percentage 39% 17% 13% 9% 9% 9% 4% 100% FOCUS GROUP RESULTS PROGRAM PARTICIPANT FOCUS GROUP The questions asked of the selected students were designed to glean more information about their perceptions of THRIVE and the perceived effects of participation in the program. Each focus group began by asking students to describe THRIVE. A little over one third of the comments (36%) indicated that the students viewed THRIVE as a program that focused on math tutoring. An additional 21% of participants indicated that THRIVE made math more fun. Other comments referenced THRIVE as a (standardized) test-preparation program, a program designed to build specific math skills and improve grades, and/or a program that used competition and snacks to help motivate students interest in math. Some students made note of the heavy use of calculators in instruction. In a similar vein, students noted that they thought the purpose of THRIVE was to help struggling students, improve math scores, provide differentiated instruction and improve district math programs. When asked to describe more discrete details of the Saturday program, student participants frequently noted use of game play and rewards to facilitate teaching and test taking skills in Algebra 1. To get a better sense of students perceptions of math in general, respondents were asked to comment on their level of comfort or dislike in math. Almost half (46%) of the student participants indicated that they have not traditionally liked math, but have enjoyed it more through THRIVE. Twenty-three percent of respondents noted always having enjoyed math. Two students (15%) noted not liking math. One student noted having mild disdain for math and another reportedly enjoyed math but felt that Algebra I was difficult. Students were asked to provide opinions of their overall student satisfaction of the program. When asked whether or not they liked THRIVE, all respondents replied positively. When probed about why they liked the 48Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 51 of 69 program, fewer individuals provided further commentary. Of those who did, hands-on activities and the personal, comfortable environment were noted as elements that made them feel more confident. Games, rewards and use of competition in math application were also noted as positive attributes. None of the respondents indicated negative feelings toward the program in response to this question, although one student recommended that the program start later in the day. When asked whether they would recommend THRIVE to other students, half of the participants (10) responded. No negative responses to this question were noted. When asked to elaborate, the majority of respondents who did not respond with a simple yes noted that the program would be particularly appropriate for students struggling with Algebra and/or those students who desire to get ahead in Algebra. Students also were asked to comment on specific changes that they would foresee as improvements to THRIVE. Among those who responded, the most frequently noted request for change related to the time or duration of the program (4 respondents). Three students indicated they would make no changes, and two students indicated that they would like to get credit for THRIVE. The remaining responses were noted among individuals and are listed in Appendix C. Because students come to THRIVE with a variety of instructional backgrounds, the next two questions addressed whether the students felt that THRIVE changed how they approached math problems and whether new ways of studying math had emerged as a result of participating in THRIVE. Over a third of the respondents indicated that THRIVE had given them different ways to solve problems. Individual comments suggested that THRIVE helped students improve grades, get ahead in class and use calculators in problem solving. One student indicated that THRIVE made math less intimidating\nanother suggested that the practice it provided made classroom concepts easier to grasp. None of the respondents indicated that THRIVE had significantly changed how they studied math. When further probed, it was noted that students perceived this question as one pertaining to test-taking and test preparation. They indicated that they continued to prepare for traditional tests as they did before participating in THRIVE. The core purpose of the question was to determine whether students applied study strategies learned in THRIVE to Algebra I class. Although it is apparent that students felt THRIVE helped them in Algebra I, their responses did not indicate that it significantly changed their study habits. When asked how THRIVE is specifically helping in Algebra, the three most frequently made comments related to the programs role in reviewing material presented in Algebra I classes, improving grades and 49Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 52 of 69 helping apply concepts. Other comments were proposed by individuals\nhowever, all but one related to THRIVE supporting math-specific needs through basic instruction that complimented but could be differentiated from classroom practices. Three probe questions were asked as follow-up. The first probe helped elicit information about how calculators serve as facilitative devices in THRIVE. One student stated that calculators could be used as a crutch and should be relied upon less heavily\nhowever, another student noted the use of calculators as helpful in solving problems more efficiently. Additional comments included references to calculators as instruments that could be used to do anything (not merely calculations) and tools that reduce the amount of thinking\" required to solve problems. Regarding the use of games and competitions, students responses suggest that they help reinforce concepts, make concepts easier to understand, make time spent learning math more fun. and help retention. When asked how students apply strategies learned in THRIVE to Algebra I classrooms. two students noted that THRIVE gives them more practice. Other students reported learning different ways to solve problems and having information from the Algebra class reinforced as helpful. Additional comments are noted in Appendix D. Since Benchmark exams play a significant role in district-level evaluations of math programs, students were asked to comment about their performance expectations on the exams as well as whether or not they felt their THRIVE experience would enhance their performance. Over 50% of respondents said they felt ready/prepared to take the Algebra subject area exams. Three students indicated that they were unsure about whether their efforts would transfer or not and one student reported feeling that he had more tricks (strategies) for solving some of the Benchmark problems than he did before attending THRIVE. Students were asked to comment on what Algebra I would be like without THRIVE or SMART. Well over one third of respondents indicated that math/algebra would be difficult and/or that they would have to study harder to keep up in class. Other comments indicated that it would be difficult to remember concepts and problems would be more complicated. One student noted that he would not have taken Algebra this year had he not been enrolled in THRIVE. 50Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 53 of 69 MENTOR FOCUS GROUP The questions posed to the SMART mentors were designed to glean information about the mentors perceptions of both SMART and THRIVE. Specifically, the purpose was to gather data about how the programs affected students. Two of the eight THRIVE mentors attended the focus group. As mentors, their jobs were reported as conducting icebreakers with the students such as scrambled math problems and providing individual help/instruction during the class sessions. While the teacher is providing instruction, the mentors walk the room and offer assistance to any student in need. The mentors viewed SMART as beneficial citing benefits that extend through pre-calculus. In describing SMART, the mentors stated that the program is exactly what the name entails Summer Math Algebra Readiness Training.\" They noted that the SMART program trains students on the graphing calculator for their first year in algebra. It makes them successful, otherwise the kids that dont go they just buy the calculator and dont know how to use it. According to the two focus group participants, participation in SMART boosts students confidence, they begin enter algebra knowing they have a head start on the major topics like order of operations, factoring, inequalities, and stuff like that. The mentors indicated that they would recommend SMART to other students because it will help them in the long run. One mentor noted that, \"Id recommend this to students who hate math, cause you get in there, give up 2 weeks of your summer, and then come out saying 'Wow, I learned and had so much fun. Especially in the competitions.' When asked how working as mentors for SMART benefited them, the mentors attributed ail of their algebra knowledge to their work with SMART. Additionally, it was noted that the program helped the mentors learn to work with students of different ages. learn teaching techniques, and new learning techniques for themselves. When asked about THRIVE, the mentors described it as the extension of SMART. The SMART program was described as a program that, gets students going, and THRIVE keeps students going by retaining their skills, tricks, and calculator skills throughout the year. However, neither tutor had participated in THRIVE so all knowledge of THRIVE is from their peers. The mentors concluded that THRIVE must be good to get you up on Saturdays because students hate to miss it. They love it. 51Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 54 of 69 ATTENDANCE Attendance data were available for 143 Thrive students. A total of eight Thrive sessions were held once every two weeks during the school year. Attendance rates ranged from 81 % to 100%, with an average attendance rate of 90% (see Figure 1). A plurality of students {n = 64,44.8%) attended all sessions, while 30.0% (n=43) missed one session, 21.7% (n=31) missed two sessions, and 3.5% (n=5) missed three sessions (see Figure 2). SMART students (n=210) attended up to eight sessions held during the summer. SMART attendance rates ranged from 94% to 100%, with an average attendance rate of 97% (see Figure 3). The vast majority of students (n=183,87.1%) missed no sessions, while 10.9% {n = 23) missed one session, and 2% (n=4) missed two or more sessions (see Figure 4). 52Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 55 of 69 Figure 1. Thrive Attendance Rate by Session. Figure 2. Number of Students by Number of Sessions Missed: Thrive. 70  SOSO 40  10  53 3 0  2 0  0 6 4 T 0 4 3 T 1 3 1 T 2 0= T 3 Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 56 of 69 Figure 3. SMART Attendance Rates by Session. Figure 4. Number of Students by Number of Sessions Missed\nSMART. 20 0  150  1 00  if' 1 83 50  HD 54 0 T 0 T 1 2 4 Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 57 of 69 STUDENT PERFORMANCE-BASED ASSESSMENT 2003-2004 AND 2004-2005 MATH BENCHMARK AND EOC SCORES For ninth graders, a 4 (Treatment Status) X 2 (African American vs. Other) analysis of covariance was performed on Algebra I EOC scores, using 2003-04 Benchmark scores and free lunch status as covariates. Effect size estimates were computed for the ninth grade programs by subtracting the adjusted mean for the comparison group from the adjusted mean for each program group, then dividing by the pooled-within groups standard deviation. Standardized (z) scores (with overall M = 0.00 and SO = 1.00) were computed for Benchmark Math scale scores and EOC Algebra I scale scores by subtracting the district mean from each score and dividing by the district standard deviation. Mean z-scores were then computed for comparison students and students participating in any program configuration by race to describe relative shifts in the achievement gap across years. For eighth graders, a descriptive analysis was conducted by computing the percentages of students at various levels of proficiency for each treatment condition. Because very few nonAfrican American students participated in any of these programs in eighth grade (n = 11), eighth grade comparisons were conducted only for African American students. All results for Benchmark and EOC data were derived from a pool of students whose scores on both exams were available. Algebra I EOC test: Ninth Grade. The ANCOVA model, which explained 55.9% of the variance in 2004-05 Algebra I EOC scores, revealed two significant main effects: 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores (F|,a45 = 855,4, p \u0026lt;.001), used as a covariate, and treatment status (F3345 = 6.10, p \u0026lt;.001). Follow-up tests indicated that the adjusted mean scores for SMART students (M=175.58, ES = +0.28), Thrive students (AT = 187.88, ES = +0.56), and students attending both programs (M= 189.77, ES = +0.60) were all significantly higher than the adjusted comparison group mean (Af=163.42\nsee Figure 5). There were no main or interaction effects of student race. 55Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 58 of 69 Figure 5. Effect Size Estimates by Program: 2004-05 Ninth Grade Algebra I End-of-course Test. 0.70 - 0.60 - 0.56 0.60 0.50 0.40------ 0.30 0.20-------- 0.10 0.00 0.28 SMART Thrive Both Table 36 provides a breakdown of mean Algebra I test scores by race and treatment status. As can be seen in the table, all program means were significantly higher (p \u0026lt; .05) than the comparisons means within each racial category. Table 36. 2004-05 Algebra I Observed and Covariate-adjusted EOC Test Means by Race and Treatment Condition: Ninth Grade Race Program Mean Non-AA Comparison SMART Thrive Both 184.47 201.07 Adjusted Mean 163.65 178.54 SD ES African American Comparison SMART Thrive Both 186.33 187.30 155.84 163.18 45.22 45.16 52.81 40.62 180.49 192.23 202.00 172.61 187.87 192.15 39.29 53.64 35.72 150 14 0 3 581 70 13 23 -t-0.34 -1-0.54 -^0.21 -hO.56 -hO.66 N Note. All Smart, Thrive, and Both means are significantly higher than comparison group mean within racial category at p \u0026lt;.05. Note. Total SD = 43.93. Note. Scores were derived from 9\" grade students with available EOC scores from 2004-2005 and Benchmark scores from 2003-2004. 56Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 59 of 69 Supplementary analyses indicated that students in any of the three program groupings were more likely to achieve at Basic, Proficient, or Advanced proficiency levels than the comparison group, while the comparison group had a large percentage of students (42.1%) achieving at a Below Basic level (see Table 37, Figure 6). Further, as shown in Figure 7, African American students participating in any of the three program configurations (z- -0.16) scored more than one standard deviation below other students in the comparison condition (z= +0.90) on 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics, but had a nearly equal score on the 2004-05 Algebra I test (z= +0.42) relative to comparison students (z= +0.50). Table 37 Percentage of Students by Proficiency Level and Program: 2004-05 Grade Algebra I End-of-Course Test Algebra I Proficiency Level Program Comparison SMART Thrive Both n % within program n % within program n % within program n % within 1-Below Basic 409 42.1% 15 17.0% 4 25.0% 2 6.7% 2-Basic 347 35.7% 45 51.1% 6 37.5% 13 43.3% 3-Proficient 174 17.9% 22 25.0% 3 18.8% 11 36.7% 4-Advanced 41 4.2% 6 6.8% 3 18.8% 4 _____________________________program Note. Scores were derived from 3^ grade students with available EOC scores from 2004-2005 and Benchmark scores from 2003-2004. 13.3% 57Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 60 of 69 IVE ISON 58 Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 61 of 69 Figure 7. Mean Z-score by Program Status and Race\n2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics and 2004-05 Algebra I. Algebra I EOC test: Eighth Grade. As shown in Figure 8, African American students who attended SMART (73.3%), Thrive (69.7%), or both programs (71.9%) were more likely to achieve at Proficient or Advanced Levels than the comparison group (58.6%\nsee Table 38. Figure 8). Comparison group students were more likely than either of the three program groups to achieve at Below Basic (12.2%) or Basic (29.3%) levels. 59Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 62 of 69 Table 38 Percentage of Students by Proficiency Level and Program: 2004-05 Grade Algebra I End-of-Course Test (African American Students) Algebra I Proficiency Level Program Comparison SMART Thrive Both n % within program n % within program n % within program n % within program 1-Below Basic 10 12.2% 6.7% 3.0% .0% 2-Basic 24 29.3% 20.0% 27.3% 28.1% 3-Proficient 35 42.7% 60.0% 17 51.5% 16 50.0% 4-Advanced 13 15.9% 13.3% 18.2% 21.9% Note. Scores were derived from Sf\" grade students with available EOC scores from 2004-2005 and Benchmark scores from 2003-2004. 60 1 1 0 3 9 2 9 9 6 7Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 63 of 69 Figure 8. Percentage of Students by Proficiency Level and Program: 2004-05 8* Grade Algebra I End-of-Course Test (African American Students). 60  50  40  c 03 O O Q. 30  20  10 PROGRAM ----------- COMPARISON -------- smart ---------thrive ----------- BOTH 1 -Below Basic 2-Basic 3-Proficient 4-Advanced 0  T T T T Proficiency Level 2004-2005 MATH ITBS SCORES (9 GRADE ONLY) ITBS Mathematics NCE scores: Grade. The ANCOVA model, which explained 70.5% of the variance in ITBS Mathematics NCE scores revealed two significant main effects: 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores (Fuses =\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_1071","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","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":["2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Curricula","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"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/1071"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nAgenda RECEIVED JAN 2 6 2006 DFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Director's Meeting JANUARY 2006 :c \u0026gt;m  -0 \u0026lt;no C: :c -0 ..... ~~ ::,m \u0026gt;(\") ..... g Oz z =. \"'a z \"' Date: . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 26, 2006 To: Board of Directors From: Re: LRSD Administrators, Employees and Community Partners Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Electronic Board Meetings / On-Line Agenda You may notice that this month's agenda looks a little different than what you usually receive. Effective with this meeting, board members are implementing NovusAgenda and will begin conducting their monthly board meetings utilizing state of the art technology. Each board member will receive and view their agenda on their home or LRSD laptop computer. The meetings will be paperless! If you have been receiving a copy of the monthly agenda, you will be asked to access your agenda in the future by going to http://boardmeetinqs.lrsd.org. You will then link to the appropriate section of the website. The three links on this page are as follows: Board - The Board of Directors site is password protected in order that we may provide them with confidential information that is related to personnel issues, employee or student hearings. Public - The Public site contains all information that you have normally received in a printed agenda and will be active t_he day prior to the meeting. Agenda - This link is provided for District personnel who create and configure items for presentation to the Board. It is also password protected. Anyone who has a computer with internet access will be able to receive the monthly board agenda. We will save thousands of dollars each year on printing, binding and delivery costs. If you have any trouble accessing your appropriate on-line site, please contact my office and speak to Beverly Griffin, 447-1005. ,... r\na (\") \u0026gt; I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 26, 2006 5:30 .p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: IV. A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Dodd Elementary School, partnering with Stagecoach Grocery \u0026amp; Deli Dodd Elementary School, partnering with Transamerica Worksite Marketing Otter Creek Elementary School, partnering with Home Bank of Arkansas Pulaski Heights Elementary School, partnering with Carol Jenkins, Realtor Terry Elementary School, partnering with Arkansas Heart Hospital Washington Magnet Elementary School, partnering with Pi Omicron Chapter of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Quarterly Legal Update C. Arkansas Facilities Master Plan - Public Hearing D. Student Assignment Report E. Budget Update F. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects G. Internal Auditors Report H. Technology Update n \u0026gt;-o i= ill -\u0026lt; C o:i:: oz ~~ m-\u0026lt;\n:o..,\n- oCz: on r- -\u0026lt; r- \u0026lt;5 nz ~Cl) r- :\u0026lt; r\n: o n -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; Regular Board Meeting January 26, 2006 Page2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes - Special Meeting, 12-08-05 Regular Meeting, 12-15-05 VI. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES A Second Reading: Policy IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements with Regulations B. US Department of Education - Grant Submission: Teaching American History VII. ADMINISTRATION A Arkansas Facilities Master Plan VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES A Personnel Changes IX. FINANCE \u0026amp; SUPPORT SERVICES A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report X. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XII. ADJOURNMENT ,... (\") \u0026gt;-o ~~ ... c: 0 3: oz\n:a\u0026gt; c\n:a m-\u0026lt;\n:a-., -c:: o\n,..:. an..z. r- \u0026lt;5 nz ,~... \"' .,, =:\n,\n, n~m~ oc\ni::c:: .m.. ,~... g~ l\n~ cnm -\u0026lt;\n:a \"'\"'\n,\n, \u0026gt;m in~ C.,,: :\n.,.\n., :-\u0026lt;lil nm =I (\") ~8 Oz z =I \"'o z \"' :,.\u0026lt;..\n,\n, (\") \u0026gt; I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME TO GUESTS Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION IV. LRCTA C. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: January 26, 2006 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Partners in Education BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership utilizes the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. RATIONALE: The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives FUNDING: Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the board approve the following partnerships: David 0. Dodd Elementary School and Stagecoach Grocery \u0026amp; Deli David 0. Dodd Elementary School and Transamerica Worksite Marketing Otter Creek Elementary School and Home Bank of Arkansas Pulaski Heights Elementary School and Carol Jenkins, Realtor Terry Elementary School and Arkansas Heart Hospital Washington Magnet Elementary School and Pi Omicron Chapter, Omega P!\u0026gt; f  Fraternity, Inc. PREPARED BY: Debbie Milam, ViPS Coordinator f) c\":\": ,t.o... ~ ~::,: \".m...' ~\"' :,:,Z \"\"C)  \u0026gt; z\"' ~\n= ::::i\n\"' ,::, .m -\"\u0026lt;' Cl m C: z 0-1 C) \u0026gt; m\"' .... \"' ~ ci ~~ ...,m m~ \"m' \"0\" .\"..'. c:: ,.... .\"n..' . \u0026gt; David 0. Dodd Elementary Partners in Education with Stagecoach Grocery \u0026amp; Deli David 0. Dodd Elementary will provide: I .Art teacher will provide work from students at Dodd at various times 2.Invitations for Field Day, Career Day, and Economic Mini Mall 3. Post Stagecoach Grocery \u0026amp; Deli's lunch menu in the Teacher's lounge 4. Acknowledge grocery employee's birthdays from students 5. Send David 0. Dodd ewsletter quarterly Stagecoach Grocery \u0026amp; Deli will provide: I .Provide a guest speaker for Career Day 2.Sponsor the Birthday Table for students one time, for (1) month approximately (20) students 3.Provide ice for Field Day \u0026amp; School Picnic 4.Provide door prize for staff member ( ex. Free lunch) once a semester (2 times) 5. Post the David 0. Dodd Elementary Newsletter David 0. Dodd Elementary- Transamerica Work.site Marketing Partners in Education Proposal Partnership Activities 2005-2006 School Year Dodd Activities 1. Dodd. staff will identify children who have a need for tutoring and will arrange the scheduling with the TWM employee. 2. The counselor at Dodd will notify the employees ofTWM to schedule speakers for Career Day. 3. The Dodd Newsletter will be sent quarterly to a TWM contact for display at the TWM office and to notify the employees of upcoming events at Dodd. 4. The Dodd Media Specialist will provide an opportunity for TWM employees to work with the newspaper staff to prepare the newsletter for publication. 5. The Art Specialist will assist the Dodd students in creating decorations for the offices atTWM. 6. The David 0. Dodd choir will perform for the TWM employees at the TMW building during the holiday season. TWM Activities l. Provide Dodd with two employees per month for 30 minutes to one hour that would listen to or read to class or children in rooms selected by the school\nconsider rotation of grades. 2. Provide guest speakers and assist in sponsorship of Career Day. 3. Provide employees who are available to tutor children. Scheduling will be worked out based on needs of Dodd and availability of TWM staffing. 4. Provide demonstration of \"First Aid\" techniques or safety skills to students. 5. Exhibit students' art work in the TWM Employee Break Room 6. Provide one staff training session in the spring and one staff training session in the fall on an agreed upon subject, such as time management, stress management, computer training, etc. 7. Provide adult supervision/assistance with select David 0. Dodd school functions, including Field Day and Economic Mini-Mall. !D 0 C \u0026gt; ~ m ~ i\n~,.... C ~ m .r,,, C I,.l..l. r\n~::i: e...n ,~, ,m,z- o Cl r\nz\"' ~\n= ::j rn !=' en .m \"' lllm CZ 0--\u0026lt; Cl \u0026gt; men --\u0026lt; en ~G'i ~~ --\u0026lt;m m~ \"m' \"0 0 \"...'. \u0026lt;:: ,.... \".n..' \u0026gt; PARTNER-IN-EDUCATION CONTRACT HOME BANK OF ARKANSAS AND OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL The staff and students of OTTER CREEK ELEME TARY SCHOOL are pleased to enter into a partnership with HOME BANK OF ARKA SAS, 8800 Stagecoach Road, Little Rock, Arkansas. As part of our willingness to become involved, all parties commit to the following: HOl\\1E BANK OF ARKANSAS  Will provide $150.00 for the purchase of a scanner for the 4th Grade Accelerated Math program.  Will donate funds in January and in March for \"Treasure Chest\" items to be used as incentives for good behavior.  Will donate time to tutor students during the school day and as needed.  Will participate in school activities and programs.  Will sponsor a \"Stewardship Award\" at the end of each nine-weeks period to one student from each grade for living up to his/her potential both academically and behaviorally. OTTER CR.ECK ELEMENT ARY SCHOOL  Student groups will perform for Home Bank of Arkansas such as caroling during December.  Staff will include Home Bank of Arkansas staff in the activities and events at school.  Home Bank of Arkansas will be included in the Otter Creek newsletters. J, Hi \n1 uckcr-, Principal'_ \"~',- .. ( ,._-L ,.,.v_t..,L _,__,-_- -1,/  ((\u0026lt;- V 1_ L _____________ _ ' ' / k . ~ 1\n0 II \\ arnd), Counselor t )\npj '\u0026lt;y 'f\n, i ~i 7 4 'c:1/1' ), \u0026lt; '!I rrnslo'I-\\ , Home Bank of Arkansas .,.....-\n7c S::: ~~- - Partnership Proposal Pulaski Heights Elementary School and Carol Jenkins, Realtor Carol Jenkins, Realtor commits to the following activities:  Sponsor Newspapers in Education for the school for the school year  Donate a stuffed animal to each class  Support Pulaski Heights Picassos fundraiser  Sponsor teacher appreciation activities: o Back to school breakfast o Dessert in November o Something for National Teacher Appreciation Week  Sponsor science fair awards Pulaski Heights Elementary School commits to the following activities:  Recognize Carol Jenkins, Realtor as a Partner in Education  Invite Carol Jenkins, Realtor to school programs  Provide monthly school calendars ,::, en .m --a\u0026lt; a, m C: z 0--\u0026lt; G) \u0026gt; men --\u0026lt; en ~ ci ~~ -,m m:::\n:c m t5 :..c.. :.:: r :c C..\".\u0026gt;. \u0026gt; Terry Elementary and Arkansas Heart Hospital Partnership Proposal Arkansas Heart Hospital will contribute the following to the partnership:  Provide tutors for students in grades K-5 that need academic assistance in literacy and math.  Provide mentors and role models for students.  Provide volunteers to assist with building improvements and updates. (Hospital engineer will coordinate and facilitate.)  Provide resources for parents that will educate them on diet/nutrition, fitness, and a \"heart\" healthy lifestyle.  Provide staff motivational activities and incentives as well as health screenings.  Organize volunteers to develop organized playground activities during recess.  Request lists of families in need from counselors and provide holiday presents for them.  Provide resources and speakers for students and staff on health related issues, careers in the medical field, and parental involvement Terry Elementary will contribute the following to the partnership:  Provide monthly/seasonal art projects made by students for all the patients in the hospital.  Provide student made get well, birthday, and holiday cards for the patients.  Participate in the Heart Hospital's annual walk.  Provide the patients with encouragement and hope from the Terry Singing Tigers when they visit the hospital to share musical programs. Partnership Proposal Washington Magnet Elementary School and Pi Omicron Chapter, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. Pi Omicron Chapter, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. commits to the following activities:  Recruit members to become mentors and tutors  Provide guest speakers for classes and Power Luncheons  Make material and monetary donations  Sponsor essay contests  Chaperone events and field trips Washington Magnet Elementary School commits to the following activities:  Recognize Pi Omicron Chapter, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc as a Partner in Education  Invite Pi Omicron Chapter, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc to school programs  Provide monthly school calendars r\n,:, C\") ..... \u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: January 26, 2006 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Arkansas Facilities Master Plan Public Hearing BACKGROUND: Act 1426, adopted by the Arkansas 85th General Assembly in 2005, established the Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities Program. The facilities program requires each school district to hold a public hearing on a ten-year facilities master plan that must be submitted to the Arkansas Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation by February 1, 2006. The master plan has been submitted for school board approval with this agenda. Because 2006 is the first year for submitting a master plan, the state is requiring districts to identify only projects scheduled for 2006 to 2009 in the February 1, 2006 plan. Projects scheduled for the final seven years of the ten-year planning period are to be submitted February 1, 2007. RATIONALE: The ten-year master plan is required to undergo a public hearing prior to being submitted to the state. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Hold a public hearing on the ten-year facilities master plan as presented. PREPARED BY: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools ~ C/l rr,~ a,~ cz 0-t C, \u0026gt; mC/l ..... C/l ~Q ~~ -\u0026lt;m m~\nx, m \"C 0\nx , ..... :n a,n 00 zz 0~ \"C :x\u0026gt;\nx, Om c...-c mo n....\n..x...,. C/l- Little Rock Cover Page DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS l1i:1l +- Back B Print January 26, 2006 5:30:00 PM Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools January 2006 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: Page 1 of 1 Planning has started for the renovation of restrooms at ALC, Dodd, Fulbright, Geyer Springs, IRC, McDermott and Watson. These 2000 bond issue projects will be done over the summer of 2006. The remodeling of some of the areas of Henderson Middle School is planned for this summer. This project covers areas of the building that the principal feels are badly needed and are critical to the academic mission. RATIONALE: Monthly reports are submitted to the Board to keep members up-to-date on construction projects in the District. FUNDING: Bond Funds RECOMMENDATION: Report item\nno action ncecssary. PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman, District Engineer http ://boardmeetings. lrsd. org/board/B luesheet. aspx ?ItemID= 1 79 \u0026amp;MeetingID=8 1/23/2006 \u0026gt; C: C ~\n:c CJ\u0026gt;\n:c m c3 ::!l .?.=. Pl :zx 0 i C: ~ m \u0026gt;31: .C D m c:\n:cCJ\u0026gt; no \u0026gt;0 zm :x - - C) !!l~ Oz ~ ... Facility Name Brady Gibbs J. A. Fair CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 26, 2006 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Project Description Cost Metal Roof $250,000 Addition $705,670 Sewer Line $82,900 Est 1.,ompIet1on Date May-06 Jan-06 Jan-06 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - WINTER/ SPRING 2006 Est (.\nompIet1on Facility Name Proiect Description Cost Date Alternative learning Center ADA Adaptations $43,134 Aug-06 Alternative learning Center Restroom Renovation $37,742 Aug-06 Booker HVAC (QZAB) $239,560 Unknown Central HVAC (QZAB) $919,760 Unknown Dodd Restroom Renovation $26,959 Aug-06 Dunbar HVAC (QZAB) $278,800 Unknown Fair Park HVAC (QZAB) $79,480 Unknown Fulbright ADA Adaptations $21 ,567 Aug-06 Fulbright Renovate Restrooms $10,784 Aug-06 Geyer Springs Replace Restroom Stalls $4,313 Aug-06 Geyer Springs ADA Adaptations $21 ,567 Aug-06 IRC ADA Adaptations $21,567 Aug-06 IRC Restroom Renovation $21 ,567 Aug-06 J. A. Fair Sewer line $82,900 Unknown Mann HVAC (QZAB) $382,400 Unknown McDermott Restroom Renovation $32,350 Aug-06 Terry Bus Drive $100,000 Unknown Watson Restroom Renovation $25,000 Auo-06 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:SL 1.,ompIeuon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Booker Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown Chicot Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown Child Nutrition Renovation $399,507 Unknown Forest Heights Remodel $4,420,128 Aug-07 Fulbright Addition/Traffic Planning $2,500 Unknown Henderson Renovation $450,000 Summer2006 Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Unknown Riohtsell Renovation $2,494,000 Unknown BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED c:s1. 1.,omp1euon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Administration Annex ADA Adaptations $32,351 Unknown Adult Education ADA Adaptations $248,020 Unknown Structural Repairs $53,918 Unknown Alternative learning Center Roof Repairs $26,959 Unknown Booker ADA Adaptations $107,835 Spring 2006 Cashion Building ADA Adaptations $21 ,567 Unknown Facility Services ADA Adaptations $32,351 Unknown Install Water Meters at Cooling Towers $4,313 Unknown Emergency Lighting Replacement $80,876 Unknown land Purchase - Booker $100,000 Unknown Garland Renovation $900,000 Partially Complete ADA Adaptations $188,711 Unknown Facilitv Name Henderson Quigley Rockefeller Transportation - Laidlaw West Little Rock School Facility Name Administration Administration Administration Administration Administration Annex Alternative Learning Ctr. Alternative Learning Ctr. Badgett Badgett Bale Bale Bale Bale Baseline Booker Booker Booker Booker Booker Booker Brady Brady Brady Carver Central Media Central Carver Carver Central Central Central Parking Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central Central Central Central Central Chicot Chicot Cloverdale Elementary Cloverdale Elem. CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 26, 2006 BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED Proiect Descriotion Cost ADA Adaptations $70,093 Restroom Upgrades $53,918 Dressing Room Renovation $37,742 ADA Adaptations $26,959 Interior Renovation $16,175 ADA Adaptations $32,351 New School $11 ,782,638 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Descriotion Cost Asbestos abatement $380,495 Fresh air system $55,000 Fire alarm $32,350 HVAC $70,000 Energy monitoring system installation Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Fire alarm $18,250 Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Energy monitoring system Partial roof replacement $269,587 HVAC $664,587 Renovation $953,520 Gym Roof $48,525 ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Asbestos abatement $10,900 Fire alarm $34,501 Addition/renovation $973,621 Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Asbestos abatement $345,072 Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Roof $85,000 Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Media Center Expansion $167,490 Parking lot $111 ,742 HV AC Renovation - Band Area $225,000 Reflecting Pond $57,561 Student parking $174,000 Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Irrigation System $14,500 Purchase land for school Unknown Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Front landing tile repair $22,470 Drainage $64,700 Sound Attenuation $43,134 Demolition $520,750 Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Esl Completion Date Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Est. Completion Date Mar-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Nov-04 May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Oct-04 Aug-04 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Nov-04 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Aug-03 Dec-04 Sep-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Jul-04 Nov-05 Jul-01 :?= .... m n :x: z 0 5 ~ C: ~ m  CD 3: . m c:\n%J (J) nc \u0026gt;0 zm :x:- -C, !!l~ Oz ~ .... Facility Name Cloverdale MS Cloverdale MS Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dunbar Facilities Service Facility Services Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Franklin Geyer Springs Gibbs Gibbs Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 26, 2006 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proiect Description Cost Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1 ,393,822 Fire Alarm Upgrade $9,200 Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Replace roof top HV AC $215,570 Renovation/addition $6,149,023 Interior renovation $84,672 Fire alarm $12,000 Remodel $799,000 Parking Lot $185,000 Roof $245,784 HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music room addition $3,155,640 Energy efficient lighting $277,594 Press box $10,784 Security cameras $12,500 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Irrigation System $14,000 Roof repairs $391 ,871 Restrooms $152,881 Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 . Diagonal parking $111,742 Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Parking lot $140,000 Roof repairs $200,000 Renovation $2,511 ,736 Roof Repair $161 ,752 Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Energy monitoring system installation $11 ,770 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Asbestos abatement $168,222 Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Intercom Security cameras $10,600 Skylight Replacement $319,000 Lockers $43,854 Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Roof replacement gym $107,835 Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Asbestos abatement $43,639 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Parking lot $269,588 HVAC (QZAB) $220,000 Site Work $6,000 Est. Completion Date Jul-01 Nov-02 Oct-04 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Nov-04 Mar-01 Aug-03 Aug-05 Aug-05 May-05 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Aug-05 Nov-03 Aug-03 May-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Jun-04 Apr-01 Jul-01 Sep-03 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 Nov-05 Dec-04 Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Jul-02 Oct-01 Nov-02 Jul-01 Nov-05 Oct-05 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 26, 2006 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Mablevale Elem Fire Alarm Upgrade $12,000 Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units $300,000 Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Mabelvale MS Renovate bleachers $134,793 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mann Partial Replacement $11 ,500,000 Mann Asphalt walks The total $1 .8 million Mann Walkway canopies is what has been Mann Boiler replacement used so far on the Mann Fencing projects listed Mann Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. McClellan Parking Lot Overlay $65,000 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 McClellan Irrigation System $14,750 McClellan Security cameras $36,300 McClellan Energy efficient lighting $303,614 McClellan Stadium stands repair $235,000 McClellan Intercom $46,000 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 McDermott Fire Alarm Upgrade $7,700 McDermott Energy efficient lighting $79,411 McDermott Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Meadowcliff Fire alarm $16,175 Meadowcliff Asbestos abatement $253,412 Meadowcliff Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Meadowcliff Remodel $397,600 Metropolitan Replace cooling tower $37,203 Metropolitan Replace shop vent system $20,000 Metropolitan Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Mitchell Renovation $356,395 Mitchell Building Remediation $165,000 Mitchell Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Mitchell Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Mitchell Asbestos abatement $13,000 Oakhurst (Adult Education) New Windows $215,000 Oakhurst HVAC renovation $237,237 Otter Creek Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Otter Creek Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Otter Creek Asbestos abatement $10,000 Otter Creek Parking lot $138,029 Otter Creek 6 classroom addition $888,778 Otter Creek Parking Improvements $142,541 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 Parkview Roof replacement $273,877 Parkview Exterior lights $10,784 Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Parkview Locker replacement $120,000 Parkview Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Procurement Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle Cafeteria Ceiling $33,378 Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle Replace Entry Doors $13,990 Est. completion Date Oct-04 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Mar-04 Apr-04 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 Apr-05 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Jul-04 Sep-04 Feb-01 Aug-02 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Oct-05 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Cancelled by Board re-use vote 11-17-05 Jul-04 Apr-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Aug-05 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Aug-03 Dec-04 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Aug-03 Aug-05 Aug-05 4 z m-\u0026lt; ~ \u0026gt;,.... ~ 0 a\no CJ\u0026gt;\no m c3 a ?= -m\u0026lt; n ::c z 0 5 ~ C: ~ m \u0026gt;3: a. , m c:\no CJ\u0026gt; c'iC \u0026gt;0 zm ::c- - C) !:!l?\n! Oz ~-\u0026lt; CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 26, 2006 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facilitv Name Project Description Cost Pulaski Heights Elementary Clean Exterior Walls $98,660 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1 ,193,259 Pulaski Hots. Elem Move playground $17,000 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Rockefeller Parking addition $111 ,742 Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Scott Field Track Renovations $289,056 Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 Southwest New Corridor Ceiling $300,000 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Southwest New roof $690,000 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Southwest Drainage I street widening $250,000 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $3,679,000 Technoloov Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Terry Addition Planning $2,500 Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Washington Fire Alarm Upgrade $11 ,600 Washington Security cameras $7,900 Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition  $800,000 Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $622,160 Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade $8,400 Western Hills ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191 ,946 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Williams Drainage Repair $29,200 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Wilson HVAC for Cafeteria $56,000 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1 ,263,876 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 Woodruff Parking addition $175,000 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 t:st l\nomp1euon Date Sep-05 Nov-04 Dec-02 Nov-04 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Apr-02 Mar-03 May-05 Jun-01 Aug-05 Nov-04 Aug-00 Oct-03 Jan-02 Auo-03 Auo-02 Aug-03 Dec-01 Jun-04 Nov-02 Unknown Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Dec-04 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Oct-04 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-05 Oct-04 Aug-04 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Nov-05 Mar-04 Dec-03 Jun-01 Mar-05 Feb-04 Aug-03 Aug-05 Aug-02 5 Little Rock Cover Page LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 11.iiJ +- Back e Print DATE: TO: January 26, 2006 5:30:00 PM Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools Internal Auditors Report BACKGROUND: Monthly update to Board. RATIONALE: Summary report of activities. FUNDING: n/a RECOMMENDATION: n/a PREPARED BY: Sandy Becker http ://boardmeetings.lrsd.org/board/Bluesheet. aspx?I temID= 167 \u0026amp;MeetingID=8 Page 1 of 1 1/24/2006\nr .... m (\") ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C \"0 ~ m \u0026gt; CD\ni: me\n,JC/) no \u0026gt;0 zm ::i::- -C\"l !!l~ Oz ~-- Date: To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 26, 2006 Board of Directors Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Audit Report - January This is the seventy-fifth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two high schools, two middle school and two elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity and related funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. b) The AAB has forwarded a Booster Club Guidelines Package to be included in official publications of the District after review. Board Policy and Regulation a) The routing of Professional Leave and Travel Requests is being worked on to make the process more efficient and to prepare for the process being automated to improve documentation and provide information for decision making. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and.streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Working with Procurement on the use ofbarcode scanners for checking and updating inventory records. This is being done to help more quickly update and check electronic equipment records at the various sites. c) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. Provided training with the Arkansas PT A on financials controls and financial preventive maintenance. Audit Report - January 2006 Page 2 of2 d) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. e) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. _f) Developed skills test for financial positions. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) c) d) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Reviewing deposits and revenues. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Assisting schools to track and reconcile Teacher School Supply Funds. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Assisting LRSD PTA's in financial process training. Reviewing payroll documentation for Time Piece (automated payroll software). Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org.\n:c ... m (\") :::c z 0 i c:= ~ m \u0026gt; CD\nr: me:=\n,::, V, no \u0026gt;0 zm :::c- -C, ~~ Oz ~ ... DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 January 26, 2006 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Policy \u0026amp; Regulations Revisions: Policy IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements, with Regulations BACKGROUND: Policies and regulations are periodically updated to ensure accuracy and alignment with new state law and regulations. RATIONALE: Due to changes in state law regarding graduation requirements, advanced placement exams, and full day attendance for students in grades nine through twelve (9-12), policy and regulation revisions are needed to ensure compliance. FUNDING: No funding required. RECOMMENDATION: Policy IKF was approved on first reading at the December 2005 board meeting. The administration recommends second reading approval at this time. PREPARED BY: Dennis Glasgow, Senior Director, Curriculum Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent, Educational Services ~\n,-~ ~f: :,\n,z 13 Fl! z en zo me: r-,:, (\") m en ?..,' z z\u0026gt; (\") ~ ,:, m ~ ~ 3\u0026gt;: a , m c: ,:, en no \u0026gt;0 zm ::i:- - C) !!l~ Oz ~ ..... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF GENERAL EDUCATION GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS The Little Rock School District Board of Education believes that students should graduate from high school possessing the skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed for responsible citizenship, life-long learning, and productive employment in our modern economy. Programs for post-secondary preparation will be available to equip students for the advanced training that will be needed for the work of the 21 st century. The Little Rock School District will be responsible for providing the educational opportunities and experiences that will enable our students to take full advantage of post-secondary education and employment opportunities available to them after graduation. The District shares with the state of Arkansas the commitment to ensure all students have access to a rigorous curriculum. The District's general graduation requirements meet and exceed the State's adopted Smart Core or Common Core curriculum. Diploma-Earning Options A student may earn a diploma from a Little Rock School District high school in one of four ways. Each has different requirements and different numbers of required units of credit. 1. Diploma from any of the five high schools for completion of the required 26 units. 2. Diploma from any of the five high schools for completion of the Little Rock Scholars curriculum of 28 units, including at least eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses. Hall High School students may take University Studies courses as substitutes for Pre-Advanced Placement and/or Advanced Placement courses. 3. Diploma earned at the Accelerated Learning Center for completion of the 22 units required by the State of Arkansas. 4. Diploma with waived or altered requirements established by an Individual Education Program (IEP) team for a student identified with disabilities. Even though the graduation requirements may be changed by the Board of Education during the time a student is enrolled in high school, the requirements established for a student's graduation class (assuming graduation in four years of high school) are those he/she must meet, even though he/she may require more than four years to earn the necessary number of units. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) Transfer Students NEPN CODE: IKF All transfer students must meet the graduation requirements of the Little Rock School District in order to receive a diploma. The LRSD high schools will accept transfer credits, grades and grade placement for students who previously attended Arkansas high schools that are accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education (See JE for additional information). Students who transfer into a Little Rock School District high school from a home school or an unaccredited high school must attend at least two semesters in order to receive a high school diploma (see IKED and IKED-R) and must attend at least four semesters to be eligible for rank-in-class (See IKC-R). Foreign Exchange students who complete the senior year in good standing may, at the discretion of the principal, participate in the graduation ceremony. Requirement to Attend School for a Full Day Act 675 of 2003 requires students in grades nine through twelve (9-12) to schedule and attend a full school day. Students must enroll in no fewer than three hundred fifty (350) minutes of planned instructional time each day as a requirement for graduation. Students may be assigned to no more than one (1) block each year or one-half block each semester for study hall or organized tutoring. Enrollment and attendance in vocational-education training courses, college courses, and school work programs may be used to satisfy the requirement of the law. Enrollment and attendance at a post-secondary institution by an eligible student for credit shall be counted by the high school at the following rate: Number of college credits (semester Credit toward the required 30 hour hours) week 1 3 2 6 3 9 4 12 5 15 6 18 7 21 8 24 9 27 10 30 2 c:,:, .,, z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt;,...\no m c3 ~ \u0026gt;3: .a , m c:\nocn nc )\u0026gt;0 zm ::c- -C) !!l~ Oz ~ ..... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) ADE Seal NEPN CODE: IKF In order to receive the ADE Seal, students must complete the state's recommended core curriculum with a minimum grade point average of 2.75 (See Standards for Accreditation 14.01 and 14.02). Magnet Program Seal Students who participate in the District's high school magnet programs may meet the magnet curriculum requirements through completion of the designated Career Focus courses established for each magnet. In order to receive a Magnet Seal, magnet students must complete fill the requirements of the magnet program. Students transferring into a magnet program after the freshman year may earn a diploma from that high school, but they will not earn the Magnet Seal. Arkansas Scholars Seal (privately sponsored) Arkansas Scholars, a program of the Arkansas business \u0026amp; Education Alliance, is a partnership between the District and the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce's Education Committee. Many local businesses have agreed to recognize the achievement of Arkansas Scholars status as a symbol of high quality education. A special Arkansas Scholars seal will be affixed to the diploma and transcript of a student who meets the following standards established by the Arkansas Scholars program: 1. Earn a grade of \"C\" or above in all courses. 2. Achieve a 95 percent or better attendance record for each of the four years of high school. 3. Complete high school in eight consecutive semesters. 4. Complete successfully at least three units in science, three units in mathematics. three units of social studies, and four units in English. Honors Diploma Seal A special Honors Seal will be affixed to the diploma and transcript of a student who meets the following standards: 1. Completes the units required for the Little Rock Scholars curriculum, which includes and goes beyond the requirements of the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board for unconditional admission to any public two-year or fouryear institution of higher education in Arkansas and which includes, but goes beyond, the requirements for eligibility for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarsh ip The Little Rock Scholars curriculum also reflects the admission requirements of the most competitive universities in the United States of America. 2. The Little Rock Scholars curriculum requires the successful completion of a minimum of eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement cou rses over a four-year period. Hall High School students may take University Studies courses as substitutes for Pre-Advanced Placement and/or Advanced Placement courses. Other approved dual-credit courses 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) offered to LRSD students in collaboration with area colleges/ universities may also be substituted for the Pre-AP or AP requirement. 3. Earns a grade-point-average of at least 3.5. Students designated for valedictory or salutatory recognition must have completed the Little Rock Scholars curriculum. Recognition of Graduates Each high school may design its own traditions to commend and celebrate the achievements of the following sets of graduates: 1. The valedictorian and salutatorian\n2. Students earning an overall average of 3.5 or above\n3. Students earning Magnet Program, Arkansas Scholars, Little Rock Scholars, and/or Honors Diploma Seals\n4. Members of the National Honor Society or similar honors organization\n5. Scholarship recipients\n6. Students with perfect attendance throughout high school\nand 7. Students whose other achievements are worthy of special recognition. Participation in Graduation Ceremony In order to be a participant in the graduation ceremony, the student must be within one unit of completing the graduation requirements and must have paid the tuition for the one-half or one unit to be taken in summer school (or, alternately, in another approved credit-earning program). All high school students and their parents will be informed in writing of this expectation when course lists and graduation requirements are published for the spring registration process. Principals will make a determination of potential graduates at the end of the junior year and each quarter of the students' senior year and inform students and their parents immediately if it is determined that the student is in danger of not graduating. Such students will be advised of all the appropriate credit-earning options, including, but not limited to, evening high school, summer programs, credit recovery, correspondence courses, online courses, credit-by-examination, and placement at the Accelerated Learning Center. Award of Diploma The award of the high school diploma will not be made until all graduation requirements are met. 4 ~)\u0026gt; CD m c:\no CJ') nc )\u0026gt; 0 zm ::c- - G) ~~ Oz =-!--\u0026lt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) Specific Course Requirements The following_ table specifies the required courses for graduation for each curriculum area. High School Graduation Requirements Little Rock School District Required, Classes of 2007 and After Reguired1 Arkansas Core Curriculum (Meets Arkansas Smart Core curriculum) Classes of 2007 and After English-4 units English-4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Enalish IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). EnQlish IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communications-1/2 unit Oral Communications-1/2 unit Communications IA -one-half unit Communications IA--one-half unit Mathematics--4 units Mathematics- 4 units Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra I or its equivalent* Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Geometry or its equivalent* Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) All math units must build on the base of algebra One or more additional units of advanced mathematics for and geometry knowledge and skills. the completion of four units in grades 9-12. Comparable concurrent credit college courses All students must take a mathematics course in may be substituted where applicable. grade 11 or 12 .  A two-year algebra equivalent or a two-year geometry equivalent may each be counted two units of the four (4) unit requirement. Science--3 units Science-3 units Physical Science (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP}\nand Physical Science\nand Biology I\nand One Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP}\nand either additional unit Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP} or Physics I /ESL Reaular or Pre-AP) Social Studies--3 units Social Studies-3 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand . Government (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Regular, or AP) United States History (ESL, Reoular, or AP) 5 Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education IA Physical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety Health and Safety Fine Arts-1 unit Fine Arts-1/2 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music Career Focus-6 units Career Focus-6 units At least six units from anl'. of the a1212roved Career Six units from anJ'. of the a1212roved Career Focus Focus Qrograms to include at least one unit from anJ'. 12rograms. of the a1212roved technologl'. courses and one-half unit of English Language Arts (from anJ'. English, Journalism, or Communciations course. Modern Grammar (1/2) is stronalv recommended.) Electives-3.5 units A fourth J'.ear of both science and social studies is encouraged, as are at least two units of foreign language. AIP classes will gualifl'. as local electives onlv Total-26 units Total-22 units Little Rock Scholars Curriculum The Board of Education recommends that students elect the challenge of a more rigorous graduation plan than the minimum requirements, including at least eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses (or University Studies courses at Hall High or approved dual-credit courses). Little Rock Scholars English-4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communications IA (1/2 unit). Mathematics -4 units (in grades 9-12) Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One or more additional units of advanced mathematics for the completion of four units in grades 9-12. Science-4 units Physical Science (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand either Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or Physics I (ESL. Regular. or Pre-AP) One additional unit Social Studies-4 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand One additional unit Foreign Language -2 units Two units of any one foreign language Physical Education -1/2 unit Physical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety 6 ~ ?\"2\nll~\n,::,z ~~ Z(I) zo ,m-\nc,:::, 0 m (/) .~., z )\u0026gt; z (\") \u0026gt; r\n,::, m c3 ~ \u0026gt; CD ~ ~\n,:,(I) c'ic )\u0026gt; 0 zm :,:- -Cl ~s\n? Oz ~ ..... Fine Arts-1 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music Career Focus-6 units ~ix units from an:i: of the airnroved Career Focus Qrograms to include one unit from an:i: of the aQQroved technolog:i: courses and English Language Arts-1/2 unit (An:i: one-half unit from English, Communications, or Journalism. Modern Grammar Is stronaiv encouraaed.l Electives-1.5 units Total-28 units (Reauires completion of eiaht Pre-AP or AP courses) Reauired, ACC Students Class of 2007 and After Engiish-4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand EnQlish IV (ESL, ReQular or AP). Oral Communications IA (1/2 unit). Mathematics-4 units Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One or more additional units of advanced mathematics for the completion of four units in grades 9-12. Science-3 units Physical Science (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand either Chemistry I (ESL, ReQular, or Pre-AP) or Phvsics I /ESL Reaular or Pre-APl Social Studies-3 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, ReQular, Pre-AP or AP) Physical Education-1/2 unit Phvsical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safetv Fine Arts-1/2 unit One unit from art dance drama, or music Career Focus-6 units Six units from any of the approved Career Focus oroarams. Total-22 units Last Revised: December 15, 2005 Adopted: July 22, 1999 Legal References: AC.A 6-15-1101, Standards of Accreditation 9.03, 14.01, 14.02 Cross References: Board of Education Policies and Regulations IKED, JE, IKED-R, IKC-R, and IKEC-R1, and the LRSD Student Handbook 7 DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 January 26, 2006 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: US Department of Education - grant submission: Teaching American History BACKGROUND: The District proposes to submit a Teaching American History grant application to implement high-quality professional development for all American history teachers. The purpose of the program is to raise student achievement by improving teachers' knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of traditional American history. By helping teachers to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation of traditional American history as a separate subject matter within the core curriculum, the program will improve instruction and raise student achievement. The District will partner with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Department of History, National History Day, the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, the Clinton Library, and the Central High National Historic Museum. RATIONALE: This proposal will build upon the 2002 Teaching American History initiative which expired in 2005. This application will provide opportunities for teachers to continue to refine and hone their pedagogical skills and knowledge of American history content. FUNDING: $1,000,000 RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval for the submission of the grant application. PREPARED BY: Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent, Educational Services Dennis Glasgow, Senior Director, Curriculum Linda Young, Grants Coordinator ~ ?\"2 ~~\n0 z gi~ Z(I) zo me: ,..\n0 (') m \"' a, .., z \u0026gt;z n ,\u0026gt;.. \"m'\n-g ~ ?\u0026lt; n 5 \"z' Cl \"m' ~ ~ \"' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: January 26, 2006 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Arkansas Facilities Master Plan BACKGROUND: The Arkansas 85th General Assembly in 2005 adopted Act 1426 which established the Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities Program. Among the provisions of the program is a requirement for each school district in the state to submit to the Arkansas Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation by February 1, 2006, a ten-year facilities master plan. The master plan identifies all of the school improvement projects a district is planning to undertake over the next ten years. According to the Facilities Division, the purpose of the master planning process is to:  Establish a mechanism for state supervision of school district activities impacting facilities and equipment\n Develop and continually update information critical to identifying academic facilities needs at the local level and across the state\nand to  Allow the state to manage financial participation in eligible academic facilities projects. The stated goal of the state's academic facilities program master planning process is to ensure that school improvements bring school facilities to a level where only routine maintenance is required within the ten-year period of the master plan. Accordingly, the state commissioned a survey of academic facilities to assess the condition of each building owned by a district. The survey results, which were released in 2004, produced a comprehensive list of facility improvement projects for each district. In preparing its ten-year master plan, each school district is directed to draw from the improvement list prepared by the state survey. Unlike most school districts in Arkansas, the Little Rock School District is not eligible to receive any state funding for capital school construction. Consequently, the district commissioned a facility improvement study of its own in 1995 which led to the development of a school capital projects list. A public referendum in 2000 approved a millage increase that dedicated $115 million to capital construction projects on the district list. The master plan scheduled for submission to the state on February 1, 2006, \u0026gt;\u0026lt; ,\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- ~ m \u0026gt;:I: 0~ '-0 0-\u0026lt; c:m s1m :i:::i:: m~ Z\nn .... z G) ~ ..., z z\u0026gt; (\"') \u0026gt; r-\nn m c3 ~ ?\u0026lt; (\"') 5 (/) z G) includes the remaining LRSD capital construction projects and any deficiencies identified by the state survey that exist within those LRSD capital construction projects. RATIONALE: The ten-year master plan is required by state law under the Arkansas Public School Academic _Facilities Program and must be approved by the district school board prior to submittal. Because 2006 is the first year for submitting a master plan, the state is requiring districts to identify only projects scheduled for 2006 to 2009 in the February 1, 2006 plan. Projects scheduled for the final seven years of the ten-year planning period are to be submitted February 1, 2007. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the ten-year facilities master plan as presented. PREPARED BY: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Little Rock Cover Page LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS ~ .. Back a Print DATE: TO: January 26, 2006 5:30:00 PM Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes BACKGROUND: None RATIONALE: To staff allocated positions within the District. FUNDING: Operating Fund RECOMMENDATION: Page 1 of 1 It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with AC.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) consecutive years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2005 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 8, 2005 for EYE are considered intern teachers. PREPARED BY: David E. Hartz, Senior Director of Human Resources http ://boardmeetings. lrsd. org/board/B luesheet. aspx?I temID= 18 0\u0026amp;MeetingID=8 1/24/2006 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;,\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;.\n= m ,.:1: c~ '- 0 0-\u0026lt; c: m ~m :ii:% m~ Z\n,:, --\u0026lt;\nC) .., z ~ C') ,.m i:,\n0 C: z\"' \u0026gt;~ :::!\n,:, 0--t z\"' \"'m ~ m (/) ~ .., z z\u0026gt; C') \u0026gt; r-\nD m ~ ~ ?\u0026lt; C') 5 (/) z C)\n,:, m 3:: ~ (/) Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees Bond, Helen Economics/ 8-8-03 1-01 30190.00 Reason: Health CENTRAL 1-31-06 TCH925 Branc~. Karunda Physical Education/ 9-12-05 1-04 32512.00 Reason: Certification FELDER 12-16-05 TCH925 expiration Childers, Jessica Art/ 8-11-04 1-04 32512.00 Reason: None given FRANKLIN 1-1-06 TCH925 Cunningham, Ellen Speech Pathology/ 10-23-80 62-20 64992.00 Reason: Retired WATSON 12-8-05 SPE925 Hunjan, Tarandeep Special Education/ 8-7-02 1-04 32512.00 Reason: Leaving the city SOUTHWEST 1-12-06 SPE925 Jordan, Adrienne Special Education/ 8-11-05 1-14 44123.00 Reason: Certification HENDERSON 1-9-06 SPE925 expiration Masser, Jennifer Special Education/ 8-1-05 1-01 30190.00 Reason: Accepted another STEPHENS 1-13-06 SPE925 position Pierce, Charlene Elementary 11/ 8-11-04 2-12 43311.00 Reason: None given WATSON 1-3-06 TCH925 Varady, Kathryn Counselor/ 4-13-90 6-18 56489.00 Reason: Retired OTTER CREEK 1-12-06 CNL925 New Certified Employees Baker, Lauren Art/ 8-12-05 1-01 30190.00 MCDERMOTT TCH925 Burl, Gregory Special Education/ 12-5-05 5-19 56054.00 MCCLELLAN SPE925 annual 33282.06 prorated Hemphill, James Special Education/ 11-30-05 1-14 44123.00 ALC SPE925 annual 26887.45 prorated Personnel Changes Page2 January 26, 2006 X x:- ~m \u0026gt;\ni: o\n,2 \u0026lt;-o 0-\u0026lt; START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL cm\nom CLASS SALARY Z\n:c NAME POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE ~,\n'\n? Z,:, -\u0026lt;2 C) Ortigara, James Special Education/ 10-31-05 4-17 52164.00 MABELVALE MIDDLE SPE925 annual 36949.50 prorated Parker, Tammy Special Education/ 12-5-05 6-10 47200.00 J. A. FAIR SPE925 annual 28025.00 prorated Woodson, Jerri Life Science/ 11-14-05 3-02 33789.00 CLOVERDALE TCH925 annual MIDDLE 22174.03 prorated ?\u0026lt; 'Tl z Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Employees \u0026gt;z (\")\n,,,~ o\"' 0C Aaron, Adriadne Lab Attendant/ 8-17-04 33-04 .11308.00 z \"C ~\n3 Reason: Resigned without FOREST PARK 11-25-05 INA925 o-\nt..J. Zu, notice \"'m ~ m Aldridge, Lester Maintenance/ 10-8-84 51-20 46800.00 CJ\u0026gt; Reason: Retired MAINTENANCE AND 12-28-05 MAINT OPERATIONS Allen, Tina Child Nutrition/ 9-10-01 3-03 9984.00 Reason: Job Abandonment CENTRAL 12-1-05 FSH550 cc 'T'I z )\u0026gt; z Annamraju, Sivakamini Instructional Aide/ 8-11-05 33-16 16192.00 (\") \u0026gt; Reason: Personal FOREST HEIGHTS 1-2-06 INA925 r\n%l m \"Cl 0 Broadway, Axie Custodian/ 8-16-04 31-02 15048.00 .\n%....l Reason: Accepted another CENTRAL 1-3-06 CUS12 position Eskew, Annette CARE/ 9-6-02 2-08 8.67 Reason: Personal CARE 1-3-06 CARE per hour Garrison, Dontornice Instructional Aide/ 8-17-05 33-04 11308.00 ?\u0026lt; Reason: Resigned without FOREST HEIGHTS 1-17-06 INA925 (\") r notice 0 CJ\u0026gt; z C)\n%l m ~\n%l\n,:\nC/) Personnel Changes Page3 January 26, 2006 NAME Hearn, Troylonda Reason: None given Johnson, Dorothy POSITION / SCHOOL CARE/ CARE Child Nutrition/ Reason: Job Abandonment STEPHENS Nash, Niketa Instructional Aide/ Reason: Accepted another ALE position Piggee, LaQuinton Custodian/ Reason: Job Abandonment PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY Sims, Lakisha Instructional Aide/ Reason: Personal MEADOW CLIFF Smith, Jason Custodian/ Reason: Accepted another MCDERMOTT position Thomas, Earnestine CARE/ Reason: None given CARE Thomas, Lavette CARE/ Reason: Accepted another CARE position Waller, Quawana Instructional Aide/ Reason: Accepted another KING position Watson, Taluana Bus Driver/ Reason: None given TRANSPORTATION New Non-Certified Employees Akins, Lucille Instructional Aide/ CHICOT START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL END DATE CLASS SALARY 8-29-05 2-04 8.05 1-3-06 CARE per hour 8-17-05 3-02 9688.00 11-29-05 FSH550 6-18-98 33-09 13140.00 1-2-06 INA925 8-18-05 31-01 11437.00 11-29-05 CUS928 8-19-05 33-16 16192.00 1-13-06 INA925 9-2-91 31-16 22752.00 11-15-05 CUS12 3-19-01 1-17 9.47 1-3-06 CARE per hour 8-19-05 3-09 9.04 1-3-06 CARE per hour 8-11-05 33-09 13140.00 1-3-06 INA925 12-9-04 3-09 15392.00 1-4-06 BUSDRV 1-2-06 33-16 16192.00 INA925 annual 8927.48 prorated Personnel Changes Page4 January 26, 2006 X x:- ~m \u0026gt;!I: c\nJ:! '-0 0 -\u0026lt; START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL Cm\nom CLASS SALARY Z::,:: NAME POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE ~~ Z\n,:, \"\"'z C) Bell, H!:llen Instructional Aide/ 12-1-05 33-16 16192.00 FOREST PARK INA925 annual 9977.77 prorated Bledsoe, Albert Air Force/ 1-2-06 65-18 66960.00 CENTRAL AN12 annual 34762.21 prorated Bryant, Thelma Child Nutrition/ 12-9-05 3-01 9401 .00 MEADOWCLIFF FSH550 annual 5610.27 prorated Carter, Danielle Lab Attendant/ 12-1-05 33-16 16192.00 ?\u0026lt; FOREST PARK INA925 annual .., z 9977.77 \u0026gt;z prorated C')\n\u0026gt;~ 8~ Hamilton, Sharon 33-19 z\" Instructional Aide/ 1-2-06 17705.00 \u0026gt; c3 -\u0026lt;,:, GIBBS INA925 annual 0-\u0026lt; z (J) 9761 .68 \"'m ~ prorated C') m (J) Hightower, Stacey Instructional Aide/ 1-2-06 33-16 16192.00 FULBRIGHT INA925 annual 8927.48 prorated .?.,' Hill, Michael Child Nutrition/ 12-1-05 3-01 9350.00 z z\u0026gt; HALL FSH550 annual C') \u0026gt; 5913.53 r \"' prorated m c3 \"...'. Long, Channon Instructional Aide/ 1-2-06 33-03 10989.00 MABEL VALE INA925 annual ELEMENTARY 6058.80 prorated Martin, Sharon Child Nutrition/ 11-10-05 3-01 9401.00 TERRY FSH550 annual ?\u0026lt; 6570.59 C') r prorated 0 (J) z C) \"m' !f\n\",:': (J) Personnel Changes Pages January 26, 2006 NAME McCaH, Yolanda Moody, Gerald Nunnley, Ora Robinson, Lakesha Samuel, Adalia Sasser, Latiste Spearmon, Willie Wilkerson, Ronald Williams, Bertha Iverson, Deloris Mccullough, Lajuanna Watson, Phyllis West, Ginentric START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY Bus Driver/ 12-12-05 2-01 53.53 TRANSPORTATION BUSDRV per day Bus Driver Aide/ 1-2-06 2-03 60.95 TRANSPORTATION BUSDRV per day Media Clerk (.50)/ 12-14-05 31-11 7876.80 MABEL VALE CLK925 annual ELEMENTARY 4483.07 prorated Instructional Aide/ 11-21-05 33-06 12002.00 FULBRIGHT INA925 annual 7720.21 prorated Bus Driver/ 12-12-05 2-01 53.53 TRANSPORTATION BUSDRV per day Secretary/ 11-28-05 31-12 20292.00 CENTRAL CLK925 annual 12844.40 prorated Bus Driver Aide/ 1-2-06 2-04 64.64 TRANSPORTATION BUSDRV per day Bus Driver/ 12-12-05 2-01 53.53 TRANSPORTATION BUSDRV per day Child Nutrition/ 11-21-05 3-01 9401 .00 WAKEFIELD FSH550 annual 6216.79 prorated Non-Certified Promotions Promoted from Instructional Aide to Media Clerk Promoted from Bus Driver Aide to Bus Driver Promoted from Bus Driver Aide to Bus Driver Promoted from Laborer/Driver to Grounds Team Leader Little Rock Cover Page DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS ~ +- Back e!:J Print January 26, 2006 5:30:00 PM Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools Donations of Property BACKGROUND: Page 1 of 1 The Little Rock School District receives donations from businesses and individuals on a regular basis. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District that donations are not formally accepted until they are approved by the Board of Directors. RATIONALE: District policy states that, in order to maintain the centralized fixed asset property accounting system, all property donation requests are forwarded to the Director of Procurement. The Procurement Department forwards the requests, along with the appropriate recommendations, to the Board of Directors for acceptance and approval. In order for proper recognition and appreciation to be conveyed to the donor, donor's name and current mailing address should be included in the donation memo. FUNDING: None RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached donation requests be approved and accepted in accordance with the policies of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. PREPARED BY: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Gwen Caraway, Fixed Asset Property Manager http ://boardmeetings.lrsd.org/board/Bluesheet.aspx?ItemID=70\u0026amp;MeetingID=8 1/24/2006 X x:- ,~. ~m o\n:l! '-0 c0-m\u0026lt;\nJJ m Z::,: ~~ Z\nJJ \"\"'z C\u0026gt; ~ .., z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt;,... ::0 m ~ ~ ?\u0026lt; n 5 \"z' C\u0026gt;\nJJ m ~\nJJ :\u0026gt;: \"' BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MEMORANDUM TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Ada Keown, Principal DATE: November 29, 2005 SUBJECT: Donations The Kiwanis Club has donated $200.00 to Brady Elementary School to be used for book purchases for the Kindergarten classes. We sincerely appreciate this donation and request it be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Kiwanis Club C/O Mr. James Thomas 7700 Apache Road Little Rock, AR 72205 Sincerely, rt/ !Ml~ Principal NOV 3 0 2005 7915 West Markham Street  Phone (501) 447-3900  Fax (501) 447-3901  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MEMORANDUM TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Ada Keown, Principal DATE: November 29, 2005 SUBJECT: Donations Target (North Little Rock) graciously donated $250.00 to Brady Elementary School. The donation will be used to assist students who are displaced due to the recent hurricanes. We sincerely appreciate this donation to our students. We recommend that this donation be accepted Target 4000 McCain Blvd North Little Rock, AR 72216 ~~ Ada.Keown, Principal NOV 3 0 2005 7915 West Markham Street  Phone (501) 447-3900  Fax (501) 4473901  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 \u0026gt;\u0026lt; :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- ?= m ,.ic oi2 '-0 0-\u0026lt; c:m ~m lC ::i:: m!i)\n? Z\n:o -\u0026lt;z C) ~ ..., z )\u0026gt; z (\") \u0026gt; r-\n:o m c3\n:o -\u0026lt; ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 C/1 z C)\n:o m ~\n:o i:i BRADY .ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MEMORANDUM TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Ada Keown, Principal DATE: November 29, 2005 SUBJECT: Donations We would like to recommend that the following donation to Brady Elementary School be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. A donation of$100.00 from Mr. or Mrs. James Woods 7207 Apache Road Little Rock, AR 72205 to assist students who are displaced due to the recent hurricanes. ~~ Ada Keown, Principal ID1,:~f.]l1/~ ~ [111.w, \\L? i ... ,\n.J L~ ~ ij tWY 3 0 2005 7915 West Markham Street  Phone (501) 447-3900  Fax (501) 447-3901  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MEMORANDUM TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Ada Keown. Principal DATE: November 29, 2005 SUBJECT: Donations We would like to recommend that the following donation to Brady Elementary School be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. A donation of $100.00 from Don and April Rodgers Jr. 13601 Pompano Drive Little Rock, AR 72211 to assist students who are displaced due to the recent hurricanes. ~,r. ____ , Ada Keow!i.~ Principal r NOV 8 0 2005 7915 West Markham Street  Phone (501) 447-3900  Fax (501) 447-3901  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;~ :=m )\u0026gt; 3: 0~ \u0026lt;-o 0-\u0026lt; c:m sj]m 3: ::c m~ Z\n,:, -\u0026lt;z C'l ?\u0026lt; ,C..'.) 0 u, z C'l\nn m I u, Date: To: From: 11VE1f:'.J,:\n,ar\n~ ~ . . . ' . ' :: . . ., . -----'-\" ---'- ... . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CARVER MAGNET SCHOOL December 1, 2005 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Diane Barksdale, Principal Subject: Donation Arti Vanzandt, Human Resource Generalist, with Raytheon Inc., generally donates the following: 1. Ten Kroger coupons worth approximately $100.00 to be used for needy families for the holidays 2. $300.00 worth of materials and school supplies for needy students 3. Four Big Books for the library program worth approximately $120.00 It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. OEC 4 2005 J- 2100 East 61H Street  Phone 447-4000  Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 L.ittCe 'Rock Centra{ Jfiefi Scfioo{ 1500 Soutfi Park Street Litt(e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 Pfi.one 501-447-1400  :fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 1/4/2006 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~ SUBJECT: DONATION Betty Emery Miner of 915 NW Elizabeth Drive, Corvallis, OR 97330, generously donated $1,000 to be utilized in the following manner:  $.500 to purchase books  $500 for the grant fund to help individual students in need. It is my recommendation that this donation  be accepted m accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. RECEHJfD JJ\\N 4 2006 X x:~ m \u0026gt;3: 0~ '-0 c0-m\u0026lt;\n,:,m Z:c ~~ Z\n,:, ..... z C) !..D., z z\u0026gt; n ,\u0026gt;...\n,:, m ~ .\n.,.:.,. ?\u0026lt; n 5 CJ) z C)\n,:, m ~\n,:, i:l Littfe 'Rock Centra( J{ifJfi Scfwo( 1500 South Park Street Littie Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-447-1400 .Fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 1/4/2006 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCURE~ENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL~~ SUBJECT: DONATION Winthrop \u0026amp; Lisenne Rockefeller graciously donated $1,000 to the Little Rock Central High School Special Education Department. The Rockefeller's mailing _address is: P. 0. Box 3l47, Little Rock, AR 72203. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. RECEijVE[) JAN 4 2006 ittfe 'Rock Centra{ Jfi9Fi Schoo{ 1500 Soutli Park Street l.ittCe 'Rock, .Jlrkansas 72202 Pfione 501-447-1400 . :Fax 501-447-1401 DATE: TO: 1/4/2006 DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT ~ FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL SUBJECT: DONATION Hugh Thomforde and Rebecca Kilmer of 321 Fountain Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72205, made a contribution of $100 to be utilized by Little Rock Central High's Drama Department. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted m accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. JAN 4 2006 X X :~ m \u0026gt;:!: 0~ \u0026lt;-o c0-m\u0026lt; ::om Z:,: iii~ Z\no \"\"'z C) !.,\".,' z z\u0026gt; (\") ,\u0026gt;-\no m\n3 ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Fair Park Early Childhood Center 616 North Harrison Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM:~h Milam, Principal DATE: December 14, 2005 RE: Donation Curtis H. Stout, Inc. located at 2400 Cantrell Road, donated to Fair Park Early Childhood Center six theatrical lights for the caf etorium valued at $1,000. It is recommended that this generous donation be approved with thanks in accordance with the policies of the board. Thank you for your consideration. CC: Dr Sadie Mitchell Associate Superintendent \\ ROMINE INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL Theme: Computer Science and Basic Skills \"\\Vhcre everyllun5 Ooinu lo \u0026amp;ucce\u0026amp;5\" TO: Darrell Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: ts Lillie Scull, Principal RE: Donation DATE: December 14, 2005 Modem Free Grand Lodge has donated toys at an approximate cost of $400.00 for filling Christmas Stockings, which will be given to our students and families in need. We recommend that this generous donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Mr. Victor Sanders 3315 Lehigh Drive Littl~ Rock, AR 72204 \\ 3400 Romine Road  Phone (501) 447-6300  Fax (501) 447-6301  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 \u0026gt;\u0026lt; :\u0026gt;\u0026lt; ~ m \u0026gt; !I: o\nE '-0 c0-m\u0026lt; ~m !I: ::c m~ Z\n,c - z C) r:D 'T1 z \u0026gt;z (\") ,\u0026gt;....\nJD m c3 ~ ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 en z C)\nJD m ~ ~ en ROMINE INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL Theme: Computer Science and Basic Skllls \"ff/here everythit)8 Ooinu lo \u0026amp;ucce.5.5 \" TO: Darrell Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: {J'Lillie Scull, Principal RE: Donation DATE: December 14, 2005 St. Mark Baptist Church has donated $100.00 to Romine Elementary to be used to purchase supplies for school yearbooks. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. St. Mark Baptist Church Bishop Steven Arnold, Pastor Elder Lamar Bailey, Chief of Operations 5722 West 12th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 OEC 14 2000 3400 Romine Road  Phone (501) 447-6300  Fax (501) 447-6301  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 TO: FROM: DATE: ADULT EDUCATION CENTER 4800 WEST 26TH STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 447-1850  FAX: 447-1851 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement j,fo,-\nPaulette H. Martin, Coordinator December 12, 2005 SUBJECT: Donation Mr. Harold Zimmerman, plant manager of Certain Teed, Roofing Products Group, 2701 East Roosevelt Road, has generously donated a $600 Literacy grant to the Little Rock Adult Education Center to purchase basic literacy textbooks/materials. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the donation policies of the Little Rock School District. DEC 14 2005 ~n Individual Approach to a World ojKnowledge\" \u0026gt;\u0026lt; :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- ~ m \u0026gt;31: 0~ '-0 0-\u0026lt; c:m\n:om Z:r: ~~ Z\n:o --\u0026lt;z C) !..l,' z z\u0026gt; (') ,\u0026gt;-\n:o m ~ .\n.:.o. ?\u0026lt; (') 5 u, z C)\n:o m ~ ~ u, Little Rock Cover Page LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS ~ +- Back 8 Print DATE: TO: January 26, 2006 5:30:00 PM Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools Financial Reports BACKGROUND: Page 1 of 1 Financial reporting is designed to keep the Board of Directors up-to-date regarding the District's current financial condition. Financial reports are submitted monthly to the Board for review and approval. RATIONALE: December 2005 financial reports are submitted for the Board's review and approval. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the financial reports as submitted. PREPARED BY: Jean A. Ring, Director Finance and Accounting http://boardmeetings.lrsd.org/board/Bluesheet.aspx?ItemID= 174\u0026amp;MeetingID=8 1/24/2006 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;,\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;. ?'m \u0026gt; lC c\ni! '-0 0-\u0026lt; c:m\n,:,m Z:z: ~~ Z\n,:, \"\"'z G) ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 en z G)\n,:, m i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004 AND 2005 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2004/05 12/31/04 COLLECTED 2005/06 12/31/05 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 61 ,436,691 61 ,324,530 99.82% 67,268,610 62,437,795 92.82% DELINQUENT TAXES 12,135,000 5,821,274 47.97% 9,200,000 7,605,068 82.66% 40% PULLBACK 31 ,250,000 0.00% 33,000,000 0.00% EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 205,000 0.00% 210,000 0.00% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 155,000 0.00% 145,000 0.00% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 185,000 0.00% 204,000 0.00% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 485,000 75,378 15.54% 365,000 97,039 26.59% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 245,000 169,098 69.02% 750,000 367,371 48.98% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 215,000 148,349 69.00% 195,000 136,614 70.06% TOTAL 106,311,691 67,538,629 63.53% 111 ,337,610 70,643,886 63.45% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 22,000 11,183 50.83% 21 ,500 9,963 46.34% . TOTAL 22,000 11 ,183 50.83% 21,500 9,963 46.34% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 65,082,694 29,621 ,016 45.51% 66,095,155 29,249,505 44.25% ALTERNATIVE LEARNING 1,927,250 963,624 50.00% 1,100,000 0.00% ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 193,739 0.00% 200,000 199,095 99.55% NATL SCHL LUNCH STUDENT FUNDING 6,498,240 2,953,745 45.45% 6,877,920 3,126,325 45.45% PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1,141 ,165 1,141 ,165 100.00% 953,144 953,144 100.00% SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS(STRS/HEAL TH) 8,275,000 3,468,815 41.92% 8,200,000 4,341,839 52.95% VOCATIONAL 1,350,000 634,461 47.00% 1,785,000 917,504 51 .40% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 2,100,000 470,225 22.39% 2,425,000 749,707 30.92% EARLY CHILDHOOD 5,542,510 2,593,434 46.79% 4,000,000 2,352,400 58.81% TRANSPORTATION 4,125,000 1,330,714 32.26% 4,252,900 1,415,633 33.29% M TO M TRANSFERS 4,575,000 1,659,652 36.28% 4,100,000 1,619,272 39.49% ADULT EDUCATION 934,380 306,122 32.76% 926,543 302,454 32.64% AT RISK FUNDING 395,000 9,400 2.38% 10,000 0.00% TAP PROGRAM 382,903 7,645 2.00% 288,623 314,623 109.01% TOTAL 102,522,882 45,160,018 44.05% 101 ,214,285 45,541 ,501 45.00% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 770,000 0.00% 770,000 0.00% TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,295,000 8,155 0.63% 1,370,524 13,285 0.97% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,849,008 0.00% 2,194,000 731,333 33.33% TOTAL 3,914,008 8,155 0.21% 4,334,524 744,618 17.18% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 212,770,581 112,717,985 52.98% 216,907,919 116,939,968 53.91% REVENUE - OT_HER FEDERAL GRANTS 22,887,794 9,541 ,314 41.69% 20,152,896 3,573,606 17.73% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 4,500,000 2,441 ,928 54.27% 4,784,200 2,505,242 52.36% MAGNET SCHOOLS 27,964,934 6,032,105 21 .57% 28,849,578 9,364,516 32.46% CHARTER SCHOOL 1,340,000 350,000 26.12% TOTAL 55,352,728 18,015,347 32.55% 55,126,674 15,793,364 28.65% TOTAL REVENUE 268,123,309 130,733,332 48.76% 272,034,593 132,733,332 48.79% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004 AND 2005 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2004/05 12/31 /04 EXPENDED 2005/06 12/31/05 EXPENSES SALARIES 117,324,912 44,814,698 38.20% 122,589,665 45,766,172 BENEFITS 36,185,811 12.491 ,139 34.52% 35,925,642 13,169,952 PURCHASED SERVICES 20,959,918 8,195,818 39.10% 22,438,191 8,631 ,053 MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,725,914 4,060,254 46.53% 10,128,394 6,296,853 CAPITAL OUTLAY 2,760,600 752,520 27.26% 2,473,965 610,213 OTHER OBJECTS 10,770.418 450,883 4.19% 10,759,804 3,619,096 DEBT SERVICE 12.474,809 4,590,834 36.80% 12,344,267 4,670,033 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 209,202,382 75,356,146 36.02% 216,659,928 82,763,373 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,258,999 7,615,890 30.15% 22,422,961 6,188,044 DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 5,007,809 1,928,649 38.51% 5,428.425 2,245,583 MAGNET SCHOOLS 27,964,934 9,306,807 33.28% 28,849,578 10,665,123 CHARTER SCHOOL 1,340,000 391,079 TOTAL 58,231 ,742 18,851,346 32.37% 58,040,964 19,489,829 TOTAL EXPENSES 267,434,124 94,207.492 35.23% 274,700,892 102,253,202 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 689,184 36,525,840 (2,666,300) 30.480,130 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET, M \u0026amp; 0 , CHARTER 4,005,957 4,005,957 3,074,390 3,074,390 OPERATING 6,531 ,706 6,531 ,706 10,753,692 10,753,692 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET, M \u0026amp; 0 , CHARTER 1,126,943 3,169,958 160,100 (622,075' OPERATING 10,099,905 43,893,545 11,001,683 44,930,288 IVII\\L 11,LLD104D 4/ ,uoJ,::\u0026gt;UJ 11,101,,~ 44,.31.J0,212 % EXPENDED 37.33% 36.66% 38.47% 62.17% 24.67% 33.64% 37.83% 38.20% 27.60% 41 .37% 36.97% 29.19% 33.58% 37.22% \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;:\u0026lt;- := m \u0026gt;~ o,'- 0 0-\u0026lt; c:m s1m ii:::i:: m~ Z\n,, ..... z C) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31 , 2005 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-05 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06 12-31-05 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE MCCLELLAN 16,453.00 6,213.54 10,239.46 0.00 CONTINGENCY 9,989.19 9,989.19 SUBTOTAL 26,442.19 0.00 0.00 6,213.54 10,239.46 9,989.19 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 8,139.34 105,000.00 98,341 .47 12,477.63 2,320.24 NEW WORK PROJECTS 2,620,881.45 755,309.00 1,822,030.19 101,290.22 1,452,870.04 SECURITY PROJECTS 14,541.25 14,541.25 LIGHTING PROJECTS 0.00 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 6,796,760.46 1,885,476.65 1,445,023.13 302,488.77 6,934,725.21 RENOVATION PROJECTS 6,114,463.73 (83,909.00) 1,745,529.74 508,854.45 3,776,170.54 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,304,501 .46 1,247,947.58 755,574.10 484,605.34 2,312,269.60 SUBTOTAL 17,859,287.69 1,247,947.58 2,661,876.65 5,866,498.63 1,409,716.41 14,492,896.88 $2,189,175 QZAB BOND ISSUE CENTRAL 919,760.00 919,760.00 MANN 382,400.00 382,400.00 BOOKER 239,560.00 239,560.00 DUNBAR 278,800.00 278,800.00 FAIR PARK 79,480.00 79,480.00 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY 220,000.00 138,517.00 81,483.00 CONTINGENCY 69,175.43 69,175.43 0.00 0.00 2,189,175.43 138,517.00 0.00 2,050,658.43 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALES 624,935.56 624,935.56 MEADOWCLIFF PROJECT 18.00 18.00 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 14,017,116.18 {2,661,876.65) 11,355,239.53 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE(2005) 0.00 2,189,175.43 (2,189,175.43) 0.00 INTEREST 5,829,676.83 729,766.83 6,559,443.66 SUBTOTAL 21,765,567.54 2,918,942.26 {4,851,052.08) 0.00 0.00 19,833,457.72 GRAND TOTAL ~ll!i:il\nm~~ ~ l aaa 11~ lW2 Qll22\u0026amp;lZ l ~l!l !l:i:i gz ~ ~DZ 11112 22 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005 PROJECT ALLOCATIONS EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 12-31--05 2000--01 2001--02 2002--03 2003--04 2004--05 ADMINISTRATION 925,526.80 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 149,597.63 114,896.16 143,447.12 NEW WORK PROJECTS 39,589,532.86 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11 ,671 ,442.11 15,993,062.06 3,515,764.95 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 113,930.47 109,609.73 27,732.73 0.00 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,862,548.33 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,661 .38 9,012.76 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 21 ,250,627.15 791 ,385.63 4,218,294.40 3,455,350.67 2,887,763.72 1,215,595.62 RENOVATION PROJECTS 51 ,071 ,693.84 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 18,091 ,992.05 6,766,246.61 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 15,292,448.46 575,016.53 4,325,201 .40 4,500,374.61 765,594.97 1,573,811 .91 UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 12,649,060.50 TOTAL 145,907,252.11 5.852,669.42 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 37,890,054.45 13,214,866.21 - - - S)UIVW3M DNISOl:l \"X EXPENSE ENCUMBERED 2005--06 THRU 12-31--05 98,341 .47 12,477.63 1,822,030.19 101 ,290.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,445,023.13 302,488.77 1,745,529.74 508,854.45 755,574.10 484,605.34 5,866,498.63 1,409,716.41 ENDING ALLOCATION SUBTOTAL 12-31--05 923,206.56 2,320.24 38,136,662.82 1,452,870.04 251,272.93 14,541 .25 4,862,548.33 0.00 14,315,901 .94 6,934,725.21 47,295,523.30 3,776,170.54 12,980,178.86 2,312,269.60 12,649,060.50 118,765,294.74 27,141 ,957.38 1N31r'lNMnorov 11x DNIMV3H 33A0ldlr'l3 'IX LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005 Fund Purchase Maturity Institution Interest Rate Type Principal Date Date Operating 12-29-05 TFN Bank of America 3.970% Repo 5,000,000.00 Operating 12-08-05 01-13-06 Bank of America 4.170% Treasury Bills 8,999,315.71 Operating 12-08-05 02-01-06 Bank of America 4.200% Treasury Bills 7,699,277.25 Operating 12-08-05 02-15-06 Bank of America 4.210% Treasury Bills 7,000,055.89 Operating 12-08-05 03-08-06 Bank of America 4.280% Treasury Bills 8,999,662.10 Operating 12-08-05 04-12-06 Bank of America 4.300% Treasury Bills 4,999,227.43 Operating 12-08-05 05-15-06 Summit Bank 4.500% CD 5,000,000.00 Total 47,697,538.38 Activity Fund 12-16-05 TFN Bank of America 3.620% Repo 1,110,000.00 Activity Fund 09-30-05 03-31-06 Bank of America 3.900% Treasury Bills 799,911 .20 Total 1,909,911 .20 Bond Account 09-05-05 03-06-06 Regions 2.966% CD 400,000.00 Capital Projects Fund \"01-10-05 01-10-06 Metropolitan 2.400% CD 1,000,934.31 Capital Projects Fund 01 -31-05 01-29-06 Bancorp South 2.750% CD 2,139,266.38 Capital Projects Fund 08-16-05 02-13-06 Twin City Bank 4.250% CD 11,286,805.57 Capital Projects Fund 08-02-05 02-02-06 Twin City Bank 3.720% CD 4,636,194.86 Capital Projects Fund 07-08-05 01-09-06 Twin City Bank 3.770% CD 10,500,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 12-12-05 03-14-06 Bank of America 4.260% Treasury Bills 4,688,397.20 Capital Projects Fund 12-29-05 TFN Bank of America 3.930% Repo 3,725,000.00 Total 38,376,598.32 Deseg Plan Scholarship . 09-06-05 03-07-06 Bank of America 3.600% Treasury Bills 736,350.00 Total 736,350.00 -- Rockefeller Scholarship 06-28-05 01-18-06 Bank of America 3.350% Treasury Bills 258,007.38 Total 258,007.38 Risk Management Loss Fund 10-17-05 03-14-06 Bank of America - 3.960% Treasury Bills 499,785.64 l otat 499,785.64\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_1056","title":"\"Little Rock School District Compass Learning Evaluation,\" Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee (final report for review)","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":["2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","University of Memphis. Center for Research in Educational Policy","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Compass Learning Evaluation,\" Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee (final report for review)"],"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/1056"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nCREP Cl!ntu for Ral!orcl, in duc11/lonol Polic)' RECEIVED JAN 5 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING slearning DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District CREP Cenlu for Research in Educutional Policy t oc s  tri t Co Le .. s n ng  10n Fina eport DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District De ember 2005 Dubor\n_ l owther St~vc1 1 Ro rrey Martind le l t I tt Rock EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the evaluation study results of the Little Rock School District's {LSRD) 2004-2005 CompassLearning (CL) program. The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold: (1) to assess the effects of CL in raising the academic achievement of African American and other students, (2) to examine CL implementation processes and practices, and (3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers, principals, and district and school personnel involved with CL regarding the strengths, weaknesses, and needed improvements of the CL program. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Primary Evaluation Question 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African American and other students? Supplemental (Step 2) Evaluation Questions 1. What is the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 19 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? 2. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the implementing schools? 3. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? DESIGN Participants. The LSRD identified 20 elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school to participate in the spring 2005 evaluation. Collectively the schools enrolled 9,318 students and employed 606 classroom teachers. Over 68% of the overall student enrollment of the selected schools was African American. The CL program was provided to kindergarten through fifth grade students in 19 elementary schools. The students spent 30- to 60-minutes per week working on CL activities that occurred either in computer labs that typically had a lab attendant and classroom teacher present or in the students' regular classrooms. The lab attendants, technology specialists, and/or teachers planned student CL activities that were primarily focused on identified areas of student deficiencies in language arts/reading and/or math. Design. The evaluation utilized a mixed-method design. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the participating schools by trained external researchers. The researchers observed CL computer labs, administered surveys to teachers and parents, conducted student focus groups, and interviewed school principals, lab attendants, technology specialists, district personnel and CL personnel. INSTRUMENTATION Five measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: direct classroom observations, surveys, interviews, focus groups, and assessment of student academic achievement. Following are descriptions of the instruments. Classroom Observation Measure  Direct classroom observation. The Survey of Computer Use for Compasslearning (SC UCL) was used to record teacher and student activities during the use CL in school computer labs during two-hour observation periods. Teacher and Parent Survey  Teacher survey. The Teacher Compasslearning Questionnaire (TCLQ) is a two-part instrument that was used to collect teacher knowledge and perceptions of CL.  Parent survey. The LSRD Compasslearning Parent Survey was designed to capture parent perceptions regarding their child's use of the CL program. Student Focus Groups  The Student Focus Group Protocol was used to document student impressions of the nature of CL activities\nthe usefulness of CL\nand student enjoyment when using CL. Interviews Five interview protocols were developed for the evaluation.  The lab attendant, technology specialist, and district (CL) personnel interviews focused on the same general areas: CL responsibilities, level, nature, and quality of CL implementation, support for the CL program, the strongest and weakest aspects of CL, and if the program should be continued. The primary purpose of the national CL representative interview was to determine Cl's guidelines for effective implementation of the CL Program.  The principal interview was for principals that had previously used the CL program in their schools. The interview focused on past use of CL, why it was discontinued, and if the school was using a different integrated learning system, and if yes, why that program was chosen. Student Achievement Analyses of student achievement on the Development Readiness Assessment (ORA), Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, (ITBS), and the Arkansas Benchmark tests were conducted to address the following research questions:  What are the effects of the Compass Learning program on student achievement in Reading and Mathematics?  Is the program effective in meeting the academic needs of African American students?  How does the achievement of African American students compare to that of other students in the same or similar schools? 2 PROCEDURE All data were collected in the spring of 2005 by external researchers. Direct observations of CL classrooms were conducted during prearranged two hour sessions at 7 randomly selected elementary schools. The SCU-CL note forms were completed every 15 minutes during the two-hour period. External researchers conducted 20-minute student focus groups at four schools that were randomly selected from the seven schools being observed. The teacher surveys (TCLQ) were administered at a faculty meeting at each of 19 elementary schools, while the parent surveys were distributed at 5 randomly selected elementary schools by having one class from each grade at the school send surveys to the parents. Surveys were returned to the school and sent to evaluators. Researchers individually interviewed lab attendants at each of the 7 randomly selected schools and conducted 45- to 60-minute phone interviews with all CL technology specialists. The researchers also interviewed two district level personnel with responsibility for the CL program\na national CL representative\nand 4 school principals from schools that no longer used CL. Each interview lasted approximately sixty minutes. Student Achievement Analysis Procedure The elementary school sample used in the student achievement analysis included a total of 7,853 LRPS students in first grade (n = 2,016), second grade (n = 1984 ), third grade (n = 1904) or fifth grade (n = 1,949) during the 2004-'05 school year. Kindergarten and fourth grade were excluded because these grades lacked corresponding 2003-04 data to be used as a \"pretest\" (statistical covariate). All 34 LRSD elementary schools were included in the analysis. The Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) was administered in grades K-2 in 2003-04 and 2004-05, and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) was administered in grades K-5 in 2004-05. The ITBS provides normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores in Reading and Mathematics. The Arkansas Benchmark test was administered in grade 4 in 2003-04, and in grades 3-5 in 2004-05. However, scale scores from the 2004-05 Arkansas Benchmark test were not available as of December 2005. RESULTS The results of the study are presented below, grouped by measurement strategy. In the conclusion section, findings are synthesized across instruments in order to address each research question. Classroom Observation Results Data from the Survey of Computer Use for Compasslearning (SCU-CL) reveled that the 19 observed CL classes were implemented in computer labs in which each student used a modern, upto- date computer. All African American and non-African American students in the classes participated equally and exhibited a high level of attention and interest in the CL activities. All observed classrooms had a high level of academically focused class time in which students were typically engaged in CL activities for language arts, mathematics, or reading. Survey Results Teacher Compasslearning Questionnaire (TCLQ) A total of 356 teachers (Caucasian= 63.2%\nAfrican American= 32.6%) working at schools implementing CL completed the TCLQ. Nearly all of the teachers reported familiarity with CL and over 60% indicated that they had received enough training to address student needs through the use of CL resources. More than one-half of the teachers indicated that they frequently used Cl's class by 3 ethnicity and class by gender reports. There was general agreement that teachers, administrators, and parents supported the continued use of CL. The primary reasons given for the continuation of CL were that the program reinforces the curriculum\nenhances student learning and skills\nand increases student engagement and excitement in learning. LRSD CompassLearning Parent Survey (Parent Survey) A total of 451 parents/guardians of primarily African American students completed the Parent Survey. Parental awareness of CL was high and most agreed that time in the computer lab was an important aspect of their child's education, had improved their child's interest in school, and had improved their child's academic achievement. Approximately one-third of the parents wrote a response when asked to describe the \"best thing\" about their child or children using CUthe computer lab. The most common responses were learning how to use computers and acquiring new learning skills. Less than one in five parents/guardians indicated that the best aspect was improvement of math and reading skills. Of the parents who provided recommended changes for CL, most indicated that their child or children needed more computer time. Student Focus Group A total of 23 fifth-grade students from four randomly selected schools participated in the focus groups, which lasted approximately 20-minutes. Student experience with CL ranged from less than one year to six years, with 43% indicating they had used CL since pre-kindergarten or kindergarten. The students reported that they primarily completed CL activities in language arts, mathematics, and reading in both computer labs and their classrooms. Of the 23 students, 10 wanted to spend more time using CL, 6 indicated the CL time was appropriate, and 2 students responded that they spent too much time in the CL lab. When asked how they would change the CL activities, the most common responses were to make the activities more fun or game-like and to add Internet access. Nearly all students thought they did better in school because CL helped them remember what they learned in class. Students indicated that the disadvantages to using CL were that sometimes the activity problems were too hard or that some were too easy or boring. All of the students responded that they would like to continue using CL. Interview Results Interview responses from the lab attendants, technology specialist, LRSD personnel, CL national representative, and principals who used CL in the past are synthesized in the summary below. Lab Attendant, Technology Specialist, District Personnel The lab attendants, technology specialists, and district (CL) personnel revealed common agreement that there was a high level of teacher support for the CL program, that the CL program was well matched to LRSD curriculum standards, and that the program has been implemented well. Interview responses indicated that the primary users of CL were students in grades K through 5 who used CL from one to five days per week. Equitable student access and appropriate implementation of CL was ensured from close monitoring by the lab attendants, technology specialists, and principals. Respondents also indicated that the teachers were regularly provided CL reports on student progress and that the teachers actively used the reports to plan student CL activities. School administrators most frequently used the CL data for year-end reports. There was unanimous agreement that the CL program should be continued due to its positive effects on student academic achievement. However, the respondents suggested that CL implementation would be improved if district guidelines were created, supervision of CL was increased, and other remediation options explored. 4 National CL Representative To obtain background regarding the CL program, an interview was conducted with a CL national representative. The responses are divided into guidelines for students, teachers, and administrators. Students. With regard to student use of CL, or time-on-task, the recommended guidelines are that students in grades 3 through 12 should spend from 60- to 90-minutes per week completing 4 to 5 new activities per content area. For students in grades K through 2, the recommended time for computer activities is 60-minutes per week per content area. Student activities should be focused on the subject that needs the most improvement. Teachers and administrators. The representative recommended that teachers should be actively involved in using the CL reports to evaluate the progress of individual students. The teachers should review student reports every two weeks in order to align classroom instruction to identified needs, plan off-line (non-CL) remediation, and adjust CL activities to address areas of non-mastery. A monthly review of CL class-by-class reports by school principals to identify any areas of need is also recommended . The CL representative indicated that teachers and administrators, who implement these \"best practices\" strategies, would be provided with formative evaluation data to help map student progress and plan needed interventions. However, the CL representative indicated that most schools do not achieve this level of implementation. School Principals The principals from four LRSD schools (1 elementary, 2 middle, 1 high) who no longer used CompassLearning were interviewed. The principals reported the primary reasons for not continuing with CL were related to technical (server and/or system) problems. Other reasons for the discontinuation of CL were insufficient Title 1 funds to fully support CL, teacher complaints that aligning lessons with CL took too much time, and the program had too many technical problems. Three principals indicated that their school had adopted different integrated learning systems (ILS). Principal impressions of the new programs were positive indicating that fewer problems were occurring and teachers were more accepting of the new systems. The fourth principal reported that a technology integration approach was being implemented rather than using an ILS. Student Achievement Results Across all grades, subjects, and achievement measures, a total of 14 separate analyses (8 Reading\n6 Math) examining treatment x School Set effects were conducted. Of these, 4 (50%) in Reading and 3 (50%) in Math showed no significant treatment main effects or interactions. Where significant effects did occur in Reading, two were main effects, respectively, showing comparison group advantages over Compass in Grade 1-ITBS (ES= -.25) and Grade 7-ITBS (ES= -0.21). The other two effects were interactions, one showing a Compass advantage within the low-poverty School Set (ES = +0.41) in Grade 1-DRA, and the other showing a comparison group advantage within the medium-poverty School Set (ES = -0.26) in Grade 2-ITBS. Significant effects in Math were associated with three interactions, showing Compass advantages in low-poverty schools in Grade 2-ITBS (ES= +0.26) and Grade 3-ITBS (ES= +0.26), and in high-poverty schools in Grade 5-ITBS (ES = +0.10). Comparison schools showed an advantage in medium-poverty schools in Grade 5-ITBS (ES = -0.15). Overall, Compass learning effects were inconsistent but positive in direction in Mathematics. Benefits were more frequent in lowpoverty than high-poverty schools. 5 CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of the present study are presented in association with each of the major research questions in the respective sections below. Primary Evaluation Question What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African American and other students? Taken as a whole, the evidence provided by this study suggests that usage of Compass Learning was not associated with noticeable achievement gains in Reading or Math for the overall sample of students or for African American students in particular. Median effect size, across all analysis, indicate a weak positive effect pf Compass in the low poverty setting but essentially zero effects in medium and high-poverty settings. Supplemental (Step 2) Evaluation Questions What is the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 19 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? The observation data indicated that CL was implemented in well-equipped, well-supervised computer labs that provided one computer for each student. All students in each class participated equally and were highly engaged and attentive to the CL activities. The interview results indicated teachers more frequently based instructional decisions on class-level performance rather than Cl's recommended strategy of using student-level performance to achieve individualized instruction. With regard to the level of implementation, most students' scheduled time for CL activities fell below program recommendations of 60-minutes per content area per week. Thus, the quality, nature, and level of implementation was generally effective with regard to computer lab environments and student engagement during CL use, but was inconsistent with regard to the degree to which student CL activities were individualized and the amount of scheduled CL time. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the implementing schools? The Compasslearning program was implemented in 19 LRSD Title 1 schools comprised of student populations that were 67.9% African American. Triangulation of data from multiple sources indicate that African American and non-African American students fully and equally participated in CL program activities at their schools. Specifically, data from direct classroom observations of 327 students in CL computer labs revealed that all of the 277 African American and 50 non-African American students were highly engaged in the use of CL in a well-supported environment. When lab attendants and technology specialists were asked which students used CL, the responses indicated a// students within the specified grade ranges regularly participated in CL classroom and lab activities. The district personnel involved with CL reported that CL is implemented in schools with the highest level of student need, or Title 1 Schools. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? There was common agreement across the teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists that the CL program was generally implemented well and that the teachers and administrators supported the use of CL in their schools. The interviewees from each group cited program flexibility to meet individual student needs as one of the strongest aspects of CL. When asked about the weaknesses of the CL program, respondents from the three groups expressed concern that aspects of the CL software were difficult for students to use\nstudents needed more computer time to benefit from the remediation, and the CL program lacked sufficient mapping to the curriculum. There was 6 unanimous agreement that the CL program should be continued due to its positive impact on student learning. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Most parents responded that they were aware of CL and believed that the program was an important part of their child or children's education. However, there was less agreement that CL increased student interest in school or that CL improved achievement in math and reading. Most parents seemed to think that their children were going to the computer lab to learn about computers, rather than to improve math and reading skills. When parents were asked about changes they would like to see in CUcomputer lab program, half wanted more computer time for their children to improve students' computer skills. The parents who suggested more variety in CL lessons seemed to have a better grasp of Cl's purpose. Overall, parents were supportive of their child/children using computers, but they were generally unaware of the overall instructional purpose of students using the CL program. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? Of the four principals who discontinued use of CL, three were generally positive regarding its past use. One of the principals, however, was less positive due to teacher dislike of the program. This principal indicated that teachers thought it took too much time to align CL activities with their classroom lesson plans, that there were too many technical problems, and the teachers did not enjoy monitoring the CL computer lab. Three of the four principals adopted different integrated learning systems (ILSs), while one chose to implement a non-lLS computer integration model. The principals that adopted new programs indicated that fewer technical problems had occurred and teachers were more accepting of the new systems. These results suggest that although these principals had discontinued use of CL, they had a generally positive regard for the use of technology to improve student learning in schools with a predominately African American population. 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPASSLEARNING EVALUATION FINAL REPORT This report summarizes the evaluation study results of the Little Rock School District's {LSRD) 2004-2005 CompassLearning (CL) program. The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold (1) to assess the effects of CL in raising the academic achievement of African American and other students, (2) to examine CL implementation processes and practices, and (3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers, principals, and district and school personnel involved with CL regarding the strengths, weaknesses, and needed improvements of the CL program. CL is a computer-based program designed to develop students' skills in reading, writing, and spelling. The program also assists and supports teachers with the management of student performance and allows instruction to be personalized to meet student needs. The lessons are designed around themes that incorporate cross-curricular student activities that are based on \"realworld\" contexts. In the 2004-05 school year, 19 LRSD elementary schools utilized CL programs, while 1 elementary school, 2 middle schools and 1 high school discontinued the program after using it in previous years. The LRSD schools that implemented the CL program were provided technology specialists and lab attendants to assist classroom teachers with integrating the CL lessons into their curriculum and to assist with technology-related concerns. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The CL evaluation was structured around one over-arching, primary question concerning the impact of CL on student achievement, and five supplemental (Step 2) questions that addressed contextual factors related to implementation of the CL program. 8 Primary Evaluation Question 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African American and other students? Supplemental (Step 2) Evaluation Questions 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 19 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? 2. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the implementing schools? 3. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES Participants The Little Rock School District identified 20 elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school to participate in the spring 2005 evaluation. Collectively the schools had an enrollment of 9,318 students and employed 606 classroom teachers. The percentage of enrollment of African American students ranged from a low of 20% to a high of 100%. The overall percentage of the schools' African American population was 68.4% (see Appendix A). The majority of participating schools were either pre-kindergarten through fifth grade or kindergarten through fifth grade. Specific distribution of schools by grade level is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Schools Participating in the Compasslearning Evaluation by Grade Level Grade Levels PreK-5 K-5 6,7,8 9 thru 12 Number of Schools 15 5 2 9 The 19 schools that actively implemented the CL program during 2004-2005 all served prekindergarten or kindergarten through fifth grade students. Of those, 13 schools (72.2%) implemented CL to all students in grades K-5, two schools (11.1 %) provided CL to all students in grades 1 through 5, while the grade levels of students using CL varied at the 3 three remaining schools (see Appendix 8). Although, the amount of weekly CL computer lab time for students ranged from 30- to 60-minutes across the schools, the schedule for majority of the students (grades K-2 = 78.9%\ngrades 3-5 = 73.6%) consisted of less than 60 minutes per week (see Appendix 8). Student CL activities occurred either in computer labs that typically had a lab attendant and classroom teacher present or in the students' regular classrooms. The lab attendants, technology specialists, and/or teachers planned student CL activities that were primarily focused on identified areas of student deficiencies in language arts/reading and/or math. Design The evaluation, which utilized a mixed-method design, was conducted during the spring of 2005. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the participating schools by trained external researchers (e.g., university faculty and staff). The researchers observed computer labs, administered surveys to teachers and parents, conducted student focus groups, and interviewed school principals, lab attendants, technology specialists, district personnel and CompassLearning personnel. A description of the evaluation instruments and a summary table of the participants and data sources, presented with associated research questions, are in Table 2. 10 Table 2. Summary of Instruments, Participants, and Data Sources by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Pnmary Quesllon 1. What are the effects of participation in CompassLeaming (CL) on the achievement of African American and other students? Supplemental (Step 2) Questions 2. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 19 elementary schools identified as implementing the program In 2004-05? 3. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools concerned? 4. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? Participants The elementary school sample included a total of 7,853 LRPS students in first grade (n = 2,016), second grade (n = 1984), third grade (n = 1904) or fifth grade (n = 1,949) during the 2004-'05 school year. Kindergarten and fourth grade were excluded because these grades lacked corresponding 2003-04 data to be used as a \"pretest\" (statistical covanate). All 34 LRSD elementary schools were included in the analysis. All CL school teachers All technology specialists at schools implementing CL CL lab attendants at the 7 schools randomly selected for observations Two district personnel involved with CL Student Focus Groups at 4 randomly selected elementary schools National CL representative All Compass schools All CL school teachers All technology specialists at schools implementing CL CL lab attendants at the 7 schools randomly selected for observations Parents of CL students Principals at one elementary school, two middle schools, and one high school Data Sources ITBS as pretest for Grades K-5 Mansas Benchmarks as posttest for 3- 5) 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (as posttest in grades 1-5) Teacher CompassLeaming Questionnaire administered dunng school faculty meetings  Technology specialist Phone Interview  District Personnel (involved with CL) Phone Interview Lab attendant Phone Interview Two-hour CL Laboratory Observations (7 randomly selected elementary schools) 20-min. Student Focus Groups (n = 5-7 students), one each at 4 schools randomly selected from the 7 observation schools National CL representative phone interview School records/archival data Two-hour CL Laboratory Observations (7 randomly selected elementary schools) Teacher Survey (faculty meeting) Technology specialist Phone Interview Lab attendant Phone Interview CL Parent Survey Distributed to one class at each grade level at 5 elementary schools Principal Phone Interview 11 Instrumentation Five measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: direct classroom observations, surveys, interviews, focus groups, and assessment of student achievement. Details of the instrumentation and administration procedures are provided in the following sections. Copies of the instruments are in Appendix C. Classroom Observation Measure The Survey of Computer Use for CompassLearning (SCU-CL) was designed to document the processes and practices used to implement CompassLearning in school computer labs during twohour observation periods. The instrument was used to record contextual data (e.g., number of students using CL by ethnicity, the number of teachers, lab attendants, or technology specialists present, and the number of classes observed during a two-hour observation visit) and computer configuration data (e.g. , number, type, and working condition of the computers). Data were also recorded regarding student use of CL including: percent of students using CL\nsubject area of the activities\nteacher/student interactions during CL use\nlevel of African American and non African American student engagement/interest\nand level of academically-focused class time. The data were recorded every 15 minutes then summarized on a data summary form at the end of the 2-hour observation period. Nineteen individual classes were observed for a total of 14 hours in 7 randomly selected elementary school computer labs. Teacher and Parent Survey Teacher Survey. The Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire (TCLQ) is a two-part instrument that was used to collect teacher knowledge and perceptions of CL. The survey began by asking teachers their gender, ethnicity, and if they knew about the CompassLearning (computer lab) program at the teacher's respective school. Teachers who were aware of the CL program were then asked to rate their level of agreement with 16 statements regarding the impact of CL on students, teacher readiness to integrate CL resources into their instructional practices, and overall support for the CL program. Items were rated with a five-point Likert-type scale that ranged from \"(1) -- Strongly Disagree\" to \"(5) -- Strongly Agree\". The next TCLQ section asked teachers to provide information regarding their experience with CL and how they used CL resources (e.g., selection of activities, use 12 of specific reports). The final items asked teachers to list the strongest and weakest aspects of CL and whether or not CL use should be continued at their school. Parent Survey. The LSRD CompassLearning Parent Survey was designed to ascertain parent awareness and perceptions regarding their child's use of the CL program. They were asked to complete one survey per household, but indicate the number and ethnicity of their school-aged child/children. If the parent or guardian were aware of the CL program, they were asked five general questions regarding student attitudes about CL and the value of CL. The final section of the survey consisted of three open-ended items to record parents' perceptions of the best and worst aspects of their child's/children's use of CL and what changes they recommended . Student Focus Groups The Student Focus Group Protocol focused on three aspects regarding student use of CL. The first aspect was the nature of CL activities (e.g., how long students had been using CL, if CL lab time was long enough). The second aspect was student perceptions of the usefulness of CL. This was documented by asking students if they thought that CL helped them to do better in school, if there were any disadvantages to using CL, and what parents and friends thought of CL. The third aspect focused on student enjoyment of using CL. At the conclusion of the focus groups, students were asked to contribute any additional comments. Interviews Interviews. The following five interview protocols were developed for the evaluation: Lab Attendant, Technology Specialist, District (CL) Personnel, Principal, and CL National Representative. The lab attendant, technology specialist, and district (CL) personnel interviews focused on the same general areas: CL responsibilities\nlevel, nature, and quality of CL implementation\nsupport for the CL program\nand , overall questions regarding the strongest and weakest aspects of CL. Participants were also asked if the program should be continued. The interview protocol for the National CL representative used a more open format, as the primary purpose was to determine the CL guidelines for effective implementation of the CL program. The principal interview was designed for principals that had previously used the CL program in their schools. The interview questions examined past use of CL, e.g., years used, overall impression 13 - of CL, how it was implemented, and why they discontinued its use. The final section included questions about current use of an ILS. PROCEDURES The nine data collection measures are summarized in Table 3 by type of measure, instrument, number completed and the data collection procedure. Table 3. Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Classroom Observations Surveys Student Focus Groups Interviews Instrument SCU-CL TCLQ LRSDCL Parent Survey Student Focus Group Protocol Lab attendant Interview Protocol Technology Specialist Interview Protocol District (CL) Personnel Interview Protocol Compass Leaming Representative Interview Protocol Pnncipal Interview Protocol Number Completed 7 356 451 4 groups\n23 5\"' grade students 6 3 2 4     Data Collection Procedure Prearranged two-hour sessions in which random classes were observed using CL at 7 randomly selected elementary schools. Note forms were completed every 15 minutes during the two-hour period. TCLQs were administered at a faculty meeting at each of 19 elementary schools. Compass Leaming Parent Surveys were distributed at 5 randomly selected elementary schools. One class from each grade at the school was selected and all parents of children in that class were asked to complete a survey. Surveys were returned to the school and sent to evaluators. Student Focus Groups were conducted by researchers at 4 randomly selected elementary schools. Each focus group interview was approximately 20-minutes in duration. Researchers individually interviewed lab attendants at 6 of the 7 randomly selected schools. Interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes to one hour. Only six interviews were conducted as one person was out on sick leave.  Researchers conducted 45- to 60-minutes phone interviews with all CL technology specialists  Researchers interviewed two district level personnel with responsibility for the Compass Leaming program. Interviews lasted approximately 45- to 60-m1nutes.  A researcher conducted a 45-minute phone interview with a national Compass Leaming representative that was familiar with the Little Rock program.  Researchers individually interviewed principals from 1 elementary school, 2 middle schools, and 1 high school that no longer used CL. Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes. 14 RESULTS The results of the study are presented below by measurement strategy. In the Conclusion section, the findings are synthesized across instruments to address each research question. Classroom Observation Results The Survey of Computer Use for CompassLearning (SCU-CL) results reflect data collected during 14 hours of observations conducted at seven randomly selected elementary schools that were implementing CompassLearning (see Table 4). During these observations, 19 kindergarten through 51h grade classes, comprised of 277 African American students and 50 non-African American students engaged in CL activities in labs equipped with one up-to-date computer for each student. Student time-on-task for the CL activities ranged from 30- to 60-minutes. At least one lab attendant was present and in almost every observation a classroom teacher was also present during each session. All students in each class, both African American and non-African American, equally participated in CL activities during the observations. The majority (71.4%) of the CL activities were either for language arts or mathematics, while some (42.9%) were focused on reading. Activities for other subject areas were rarely observed. Over one-half (57.2%, frequently to extensively) of the observed CL lessons started with no instructions being given to the students. During the lessons, students asked questions related to the CL content in 43.1 % (frequently to extensively) of the visits. Student questions regarding the CL software, the computers, or other issues occurred less frequently during CL lab time. The lab attendants were observed actively moving among the students while they worked on CL activities during slightly over half of the visits (57.1 %, occasionally to extensively). Both African American and non-African American students exhibited a high level of attention and interest in the CL activities, and all observed classrooms had a high level of academically focused class time. 15 Table 4. Survey of Computer Use for Compasslearning (SCU-CL) Results n = 7 two-hour observations ( 19 classrooms) Number of students by ethnicity Elementary School All grades observed African Non-African Brady Chicot Geyer Springs McDemiott Rightsell Stephens Wakefield Total Kand 5 Kand 3 4 and 5 Kand 1 2and 3 K and2 3,4and5 American 29 49 42 44 33 29 51 277 (84.7%) Computer Configuration and Use How many computers were available for Compassleaming? Only one 2-4 5--10 11 or more During the observation, what percentage of the following students used Compassleaming? African American Caucasian CompassLearning Activities Subject Areas of Observed CL Activities Language Arts Mathematics Reading Science Social Studies Writing Cross-Cultural Types of student questions while using CL Content Area (e.g. how to solve a problem-the meaning of a word) Software use (e.g. how to log in or change sections) Computer use (e.g. how to use keyboard or mouse) Non-CL question (e .g. Do I have to sit next to .. . ? May I go to the restroom?) Types of Instruction given to students at the start of the lesson Content area review (e.g. reading, math) Software use (e.g. how to log in, find correct lesson) Computers use (e.g. locate software, use mouse) Classroom behavior rules No instruction given Teacher movement among students High level of teacher movement among students during CompassLeaming labs Student attention and academic focus High level of Afncan American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CL High Level of Non-Afncan American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CL High level of academically focused class time American 5 3 14 0 0 27 50 (15.3%) % Observed 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Only a few (Less than 10%} 0.0 0.0 Not Observed 0.0 0.0 14.3 57.1 85.7 85.7 71.4 Not Observed 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 Not Observed 85.7 71.4 85.7 57.1 42.9 Not Observed 14.3 Not Observed 0.0 28.6 0.0 Number of teachers present Number of classes observed 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 19 Lab attendant 2 8 Most of the computers used for Compassleaming were Up to date Aging but adequate Outdated/limited capacity Some {About 10%} Most (51-90%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage of classes Rarely Occasionally F reg uently 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 42.9 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 Teachers 2 3 2 3 2 4 17 % Observed 100.0 0.0 0.0 Near1yaIVall (About91- 100%} 100.0 100.0 Extensively 71.4 71.4 42.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively 14.2 14.3 42.9 71.4 Rarely 0.0 14.3 0.0 28.6 0.0 Rarely 28.6 Rarely 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.7 57.1 0.0 14.3 Occasionally 0.0 14.3 14.3 14.3 0.0 28.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Frequently 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Extensively 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 Occasionally F reguently Extensively 28.6 14.3 14.3 Occasionally Frequently Extensively 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 57.1 71.4 100.0 16 Survey Results This section contains the results of the Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire {TCLQ) and the CompassLearning Parent Survey (Parent Survey). Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire (TCLQ) The Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire {TCLQ) was completed by a total of 356 teachers working at schools implementing the CompassLearning program. The respondents were primarily Caucasian (63.2%), and secondarily African American (32.6%), with most respondents being female (88.2%). As shown in Table 5, The TCLQ begins with two questions about the visibility and perceived value of the CL program. A very high percentage of teachers (96.1 %) reported familiarity with CL and most (93.3%) supported the continued use of CL within their respective schools. The next 16 TCLQ items assessing teacher perceptions of CL were indicative of a relatively high level of teacher approval for the program . Many items were rated highly on the survey (as measured by a combination of the categories \"Strongly Agree\" and \"Agree\". At least 85% of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the school computers for CL were in good condition (90.5%), the administration supported teacher use of CL (88.8%), and the teachers were supportive of CL (88.5%). Additional positive responses included agreement that CL increased student learning (78.4%), increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement (77.3%), and was valuable for improving the achievement of African American students (73.0%). Approximately 70% of the teachers agreed that they routinely aligned CL with their lessons (72.5%), reviewed CL content in class (71.0%), and customized CL activities to meet individual needs of students. The concluding section of survey items addressed the use of the CL reporting functions. Teachers reported frequent use of \"Class by Ethnicity'' (59.8%), \"Class by Gender\" (64.6%), and \"Other\" (78.6%) CL reports, while over one-half (53.7%) reported never using \"Whole Class\" and 45.2% reported never using \"Individual Student\" reports. 17 Table 5. Teacher Compass Learning Questionnaire (TCLQ) Results n = 356 Items Do you know about the CompassLeaming (computer lab} program at your school? Do you think your school should continue using CompassLeaming? %No 03.93 06.74 % Yes 96.07 93.26 Percent of Teacher Response Items Most of our school computers that are used for CompassLeaming are kept in good working condition. The administration fully supports teacher use of CompassLeaming resources. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the CompassLeaming program. My computer skills are adequate to access CompassLeaming resources. I can readily obtain answers about CompassLeaming. The use of CompassLeaming has increased student learning and achievement. The use of Compass Leaming has increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement in learning. Our school has a well-developed plan that guides the CompassLeaming program. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African American students. I routinely align CompassLeaming with my lessons and the district's standards based curriculum. I routinely provide academic review of content covered during the use of Compass Leaming. The use of CompassLeaming has improved the quality of student work. I routinely customize CompassLeaming activities to meet the individual needs of students. I have received enough training to address student learning needs through the use of CompassLeaming resources. Parents and community members support our school's use of CompassLeaming. I routinely modify my instructional practices on the basis of student performance in CompassLeaming. How frequently do you use the following Compassleaming reports? Whole Class Individual Student Class by Ethnicity Class by Gender Other Disagree \u0026amp; Strorgly Disagree 4.21 1.12 1.40 4.78. 4.21 2.25 4.49 4.78 1.97 4.78 7.30 3.93 7.87 14.33 2.81 12.92 Never 53.65 45.22 5.62 6.18 3.09 Neutral Strongly Agree \u0026amp; Agree 5.34 90.45 7.58 88.76 9.27 88.48 10.67 83.71 12.08 83.43 16.57 78.37 17.42 77.25 19.10 75.28 22.75 73.03 21 .35 72.47 20.22 71 .00 23.88 70.22 23.03 67.13 19.66 65.45 31 .74 64.61 30.90 54.78 Seldom Frequentiy 23.60 14.04 25.56 20.22 23.31 59.83 21 .35 64.64 5.06 78.65 18 The teachers also responded to open-ended questions about the use and effectiveness of the CL system. Following are highlights of the responses. Detailed results for the TCLQ open-ended items are found in Appendix D. Familiarity with CL. As seen in Table 5, almost all of the teachers completing the TCLQ were famil iar with CL. However, the open-ended comments revealed that only about one-third (37.2%) had used CL for more than 3 years. Perhaps the relative lack of experience with CL contributed to the low response rate to the item asking teachers to describe their understanding of the CompassLearning program. Less than one-fourth (84 of 356) of the teachers responded to this item. Within those responses, all the teachers revealed a general understanding of the overall purpose of the CL program. The most common responses were that CL reinforces skills addressed by the district framework (58.3%) and that CL was a program designed to enhance student learning (21 .4%). Teacher responses were somewhat evenly divided when asked how subject areas and performance levels of activities were selected. Approximately one-fourth of the respondents indicated that decisions were made on the basis of student abilities, skills, and/or grade level (25.1 %), while a similar number responded that testing results were used (23.2%). CL reports. Respondents clearly identified assessing student growth and academic progress (63.3%) as the primary reason for using CL reports. Only 56 out of 356 (15.7%) teachers indicated that they did not use CL reports. The most common reasons were: use of \"other\" assessment data/tools (33.9%)\nlack of time (26.7%), and lack of skill in using CL (23.2%). Representative teacher comments included:  I don't use them frequently because I don't think it's always a good assessment for all learners.  Arkansas Reading First data is my primary diagnostic tool.  I seldom use the reports. I monitor while they are working. I consider CompassLearning to be a good way to practice skills.  I have very little knowledge of Compass. Strongest and weakest aspects of CL. The strongest aspect of CL identified was reinforcement of skills and the curriculum (41.2%), followed by the ability to adjust the program according to the needs of the teachers and of the students (32.9%). Student engagement or interest in learning was mentioned by 15.8% of the respondents. CL weaknesses reported by the teachers were primarily related to software issues or difficulty that students had in using some of the program features (58.6%) 19 and that the schedule did not allow enough time for students to benefit from the program (21.7%). Seventy-five percent of the teachers wrote a response to the final question, which asked teachers why their school should continue using CL. The responses were fairly evenly distributed across three reasons: CL reinforces the curriculum (33.3%)\nCL enhances student learning and skills (26.2%)\nand use of CL increases student engagement and excitement in learning (20.9%). The following are sample teacher responses highlighting why their schools should keep CL:  The children love it. It is great practice for skills.  Compass is a great tool for addressing specific student needs.  Students enjoy working at their own pace and ability and it provides good reinforcement for what you are teaching in class.  It allows students to work toward mastery of certain academic skills presented in class on an individual basis.  It is a wonderful tool for records of student growth.  It has been a great plus to student learning. It allows teachers the freedom to set it to their teaching and student needs.  This program has been a bright innovative way of reinforcing methods of skills and the students work and learn on their own pace which shows results of what they are learning.  I think it is a very valuable tool to help strengthen our students' skills in a fun way they enjoy. Going to computer is a treat! LRSD Compasslearning Parent Survey (Parent Survey) Of approximately 625 Parent Surveys distributed to children in five randomly selected schools, 451 parents responded (72.2% response rate). Over 84% (84.3%) of the children represented by parents completing surveys were African American, followed by 8.0% who were Hispanic and 2.0% who were Caucasian. Parental awareness of the CL program was high (82.5%), and most parents indicated they learned about the CL program via their children (55.7%). When asked how excited their child or children get about using CL, 60.1 % responded \"a lot\", 21 .7% reported \"some\", while less than 3% (2.9%) indicated that their child or children did not get exited about using CL. Parent responses indicate general approval of the CL program by agreeing that time in the computer lab: was important in their child's education (84.5%)\nhad improved their child's interest in school (63.2%)\nand had improved their child's achievement (57.7%). The parents' responses are summarized in Table 6. 20 Table 6. LRSD Compasslearning Parent Survey Results n = 451 Items Do you know about the Computer Lab (Compassleaming) program at your child's/children's school? Indicate the ethnicity of your child/children Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic How did you learn about the computer lab activities? School Teacher My Kids Other parents/friends How excited do your child/children get about using the computer lab? Aloi Some Not at all Not sure % Yes 82.48 % 02.00 84.26 07.98 00.00 01.33 % 11 .53 09.53 55.65 01 .55 % 60.09 21 .73 02.88 04.66 Percentage: Yes Somewhat No Not Sure Do you think time in the computer lab is an important part of your child's/children's education? 84.48 05.54 00.44 00.67 Do you think time in the computer lab has improved your child's/children's interest in school? 63.19 17.74 03.55 04.21 Do you think time in the computer lab has improved your child's/children's achievement in reading and math? 57.65 18.40 01.77 06.43 In order to gain a more complete understanding of parental perception of the CL program, parents were asked three additional questions about CL. These questions were designed to elicit open-ended responses and comments from the parents. Highlights of the parent responses are presented below and a full summary is located in Appendix E. Approximately two-thirds (273 of 451\n60.5%) of the parents wrote a response when asked to describe the best thing about their child or children using the \"computer lab program\". The most common responses were that students were learning how to use computers (43.9%) and were acquiring new learning skills or learning in a better way (38.0%). Less than 20% (17.9%) indicated that the best aspect was improvement of math and reading skills. When asked about negative or \"worst\" aspects of CL, there was a 34.1 % response rate (154 of 451) with 59% of the respondents indicating that there were no negative aspects. Thirty-five parents or guardians (22.7%) were concerned that their child or children might have access to inappropriate Internet-based materials 21 when using CL. A small percentage (7.7%) of parents indicated the worst aspect of CL was that it replaced traditional classroom/textbook learning with computer-based learning. Sample parent comments reflecting this concern included \"The act of just using the computer lab program may take away from the child's own thinking and reasoning capacity.\" And, \"It may get them too adapted until they wouldn't want to sit in a classroom.\" The last open-ended item on the Parent Survey asked parents what changes they would like to see in the computer lab program or CL. Of the 158 (35.0% of 451) parents who responded to the last question, 50.6% indicated that their child or children needed more computer time and 25.3% wanted more variety in the lessons, content areas, and types of activities. Nearly the same percentage (24.5%) of parents responded that no changes were needed. Student Focus Group Results A total of 23 5 th grade students from 4 randomly selected elementary schools participated in the 20-minute focus groups. The students' experience with CL ranged from less than one year up to six years, with 42.8% indicating they had used CL since pre-kindergarten or kindergarten. Full results of the Student Focus Group are in Appendix F. Nature of the CL activities. The students reported that they primarily completed CL activities in language arts (33.3%), mathematics (28.6%), and reading (19.0%), in both computer labs and their classrooms. Of the 23 students, 10 wanted to spend more time using CL, 6 replied that CL time was appropriate, and 2 students indicated they spent too much time in the CL lab. Technical concerns reported by the students were focused on hardware (computer freezing, slow startup) and software malfunctions. When asked how they would change the CL activities, the most common response was to make the activities more fun or game-like (42.8%), while 21.4% requested Internet access, and more math, science, and spelling activities. Usefulness of CL activities. When asked if CL helped them to \"do better in school\", 17 of the 23 students responded, \"Yes\". The most common reason cited for this response (83.3%) was that CL helped the students remember what they learned in class and provided practice in and out of the classroom. Students indicated that the disadvantages to using CL were that sometimes the activity problems were too hard (52.8%) or that some were too easy or boring (32.0%). The majority (71.4%) of the students responded that their parents were supportive of the CL program. The students were 22 less positive when asked what their friends said about using CL, with 50.0% saying their friends thought the program was dumb or boring. Responses were mixed when asking which types of students would benefit the most and least from using CL. Students indicated that CL would be most beneficial for students who were immature (27.2%), tried their best or liked CL (27.2%), were smart (18.2%), or disadvantaged (18.2%). They thought that CL would be least beneficial to students who didn't try (66 .7%) or were smart (22.2%). Enjoyment of CL. The majority (89.5%) of the students indicated that they really liked or loved CL, while only 2 students indicated that they liked it a \"little bit\" (10.5%). Students' favorite things about using CL were that it helped them to learn/understand class work (31 .2%), was exciting and fun , helped learn new and harder things, and helped with math and reading (18.7% each). The least favorite things were that students could not use calculators when completing CL math lessons (27.2%), the spelling, social studies, and math lessons (27.7%), and repeating lessons (22.2%). All (23) students responded that they would like to continue using CL. Interviews The interview results are presented in three sections. First are the interviews with those directly responsible for overseeing implementation of the CompassLearning program: lab attendants (n = 6), technology specialist (n = 3), and LRSD personnel (n = 2). This is followed by the CL national representative interview summary. The section ends with the interview results from four high school principals whose schools did not use CL in 2004-2005, but had previously used CL at their respective schools. Lab Attendant, Technology Specialist, and District (CL) Personnel Highlights from the Lab Attendant, Technology Specialist, and District (CL) Personnel interview results will be discussed by these major interview categories: CL responsibilities, implementation, overall strengths and weaknesses, and if the program should be continued. Detailed results of these three interviews are in Appendix G. CL Responsibilities. The interview responses revealed that CL responsibilities were distributed as would be expected with the lab attendants having the greatest level of interaction with the students during CL lab time. Both the lab attendants and technology specialists worked with teachers to align 23 CL activities with lessons and to produce CL reports. The technology specialists provided teacher training, while the district personnel were responsible for general oversight of the program and served as liaisons between all CL district personnel. CL implementation. When asked to evaluate the CL software and support from the vendor, responses from the three groups ranged from \"fine\" to \"great\" with regard to the software and from \"OK\" to \"excellent\" concerning vendor support. The groups did, however, display consensus that there was a high level of teacher support for the CL program and that the program had been implemented very well. The best aspects of CL implementation included integration of CL activities with LRSD curriculum, custom sequencing of the units, and the use of reports for tracking student progress. Suggestions for improving the implementation process were to create district guidelines, increase supervision, and examine other remediation options. When examining how the program was implemented, interview responses indicated that the primary users of the CL program were students in grades pre-kindergarten through 5 who used CL from 1 to 5 days per week. Respondents from the three groups indicated that the teachers were regularly provided CL reports on student progress and actively used the reports to plan student CL activities. School administrators' most frequent use of the CL data was for year-end reports. Equitable student access and appropriate implementation of CL were ensured by means of close monitoring by the lab attendants, technology specialists, and principals. Overall strengths, weaknesses, continuation. There was once again consensus among the respondents with regard to the strongest aspects of the CL program. The interviewees from each group cited program flexibility to meet individual student needs, alignment of CL with LSRD curriculum standards (except math), and student enjoyment/engagement as the strongest aspects of CL. Differences were noted, however, in responses about the weakness of the CL program. The lab attendants indicated that students needed more CL time and that some of the lessons required special equipment or software. The technology specialists responded that the CL math curriculum was not well aligned with LSRD curriculum, the program lacked curriculum mapping, and sometimes the oral commands were difficult for students to understand. From the district perspective, one respondent indicated the CL program lacked oversight, while the second one did not state a 24 weakness. There was unanimous agreement that the CL program should be continued due to its positive contribution to student learning. National CL Representative One of Compasslearning's national representatives whose responsibilities included managing Cl's research and evaluation program was interviewed. This person was also knowledgeable about the LRSD program. The purpose of the interview was to obtain the representative's perspective on how schools should implement CL to improve student academic achievement. Her responses are divided into guidelines for students, teachers, and administrators. Students. With regard to student use of CL, or time-on-task, the recommended guidelines are that students in grades 3 through 12 should spend from 60 to 90 minutes per week completing 4 to 5 new activities per content area. Student activities should be focused on the subject that needs the most improvement. For students in grades K through 2, the recommended time for computer activities is 60 minutes per week per content area. Teachers. The CL representative indicated that teachers should be actively involved in using the CL reports to evaluate the progress of individual students. She recommended that teachers review student reports eve,y two weeks in order to align classroom instruction to identified needs, plan off-line (non-CL) remediation and adjust CL activities to address areas of non-mastery. Administrators. The CL representative recommended that school principals review CL class-byclass reports on a monthly basis to identify any areas of need. When teachers and administrators implement these \"best practices\" strategies, they will be provided with formative evaluation data to help determine if: student learning is \"on-track\nif the curriculum needs to be altered\nand, whether or not students need more off-line activities\". However, the CL representative indicated that most schools do not achieve this level of implementation. School Principals The principals from four LRSD schools (1 elementary school, 2 middle schools, and 1 high school) who no longer use Compasslearning were interviewed to examine how CL was used in the past, why it was discontinued, and if the school had implemented a different integrated learning system (ILS). Collectively, the student population of the four schools was 90% African American. Key findings from the interviews are presented below and the full interview summary is in Appendix H. 25 Past use of CL. Three of the four principals indicated a positive overall impression of CL, while one reported that the teachers disliked it. All four principals reported that their school had implemented the CL program in computer labs. However, the amount of time students spent using the software and the student populations that used CL were different for each school. One principal indicated that all students used CL, one responded that only students in English classes used it, another reported that CL was used by magnet students, and the fourth indicated that CL was used by students who needed extra academic assistance. When asked how teachers were involved with CL, 3 principals indicated their teachers aligned CL lessons with classroom instruction, 2 said teachers helped monitor the labs, and 1 reported that the teachers did very little with CL. The principals reported the primary reasons for not continuing with CL were related to server or system problems. Other reasons were lack of enough Title 1 funds, teacher complaints that the program took too much time to align with lessons, and teacher complaints of too many technical problems. Current use of an /LS. Three principals indicated that their schools were currently using different integrated learning systems {ILSs). One middle school principal reported that his school was using two systems (Accelerated Reader, and Destination Math), while the other middle school principal had adopted River Deep. The ILS adopted by the high school was Plato. The principals reported positive impressions of the new programs, indicating that fewer problems were occurring and that teachers were more accepting of the new systems. The fourth principal reported that a technology integration approach was being implemented rather than using an ILS. The principal further explained that with this approach students use basic software applications like spreadsheets, presentation and word processing software to enhance classroom environments. Student Achievement Results Research Questions Analyses of student achievement on the Development Readiness Assessment (ORA), Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, (ITBS), and the Arkansas Benchmark tests were conducted to address the following research questions: 26 1. What are the effects of the Compass Learning program on student achievement in Reading and Mathematics? 2. Is the program effective in meeting the academic needs of African American students? 3. How does the achievement of African American students compare to that of other students in the same or similar schools? Sample The elementary school sample included a total of 7,853 LRPS students in first grade (n = 2,016), second grade (n = 1984 ), third grade (n = 1904) or fifth grade (n = 1,949) during the 2004-'05 school year. Kindergarten and fourth grade were excluded because these grades lacked corresponding 2003-04 data to be used as a \"pretest\" (statistical covariate) .. All 34 LRSD elementary schools were included in the analysis. Overall, 67% of the student sample was eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and 68% was African American. A majority (60%\nn = 4,728) attended one of the 21 schools that offered the Compass Learning program. School Matching Process Elementary schools. To facilitate analysis of program effects, elementary schools were matched via hierarchical cluster analysis into homogeneous sets on the basis of percentage eligible for free or reduced price lunch and percentage African American enrollment. Ward's minimum variance method was used as a clustering algorithm, and squared Euclidean distances were used as similarity measures. Three homogeneous School Sets were identified:  Set 1 (Low Poverty, Majority White) contained 4r schools with a mean percentage of students eligible for free lunch of 24.5% and mean African-American enrollment of 35.0%\n Set 2 (Medium Poverty, Integrated) contained 9 schools with a mean percentage of students eligible for free lunch of 55.5% and mean African-American enrollment of 56.4%\nand  Set 3 (High Poverty, Majority African American) contained 21 schools with a mean percentage of students eligible for free lunch of 84.9% and mean African-American enrollment of 83.3%. Middle schools. Two middle schools, Cloverdale and Henderson, implemented the Compass Learning program. Two comparison middle schools, Southwest and Mabelvale, were selected on the 27 basis of similarities in percentage of African American students and students eligible for free lunch. Percentages of African American students were 81.1 % at Cloverdale, 81.3% at Henderson, 81.4% at Mabelvale, and 93.1 % at Southwest. Percentages of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch were 82.9% at Cloverdale, 69.6% at Henderson, 74.4% at Mabelvale, and 83.5% at Southwest. A total of 562 sixth graders and 531 seventh graders were included in the analyses. Measures The Developmental Reading Assessment (ORA) was administered in grades K-2 in 2003-04 and 2004-05, and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) was administered in grades K-5 in 2004-05. The ITBS provides normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores in Reading and Mathematics. The Arkansas Benchmark test was administered in grade 4 in 2003-04, and in grades 3-5 in 2004-05. However, scale scores from the 2004-05 Arkansas Benchmark test were not available as of December 2005. Construction of ORA NCE scores. ORA scores in 2004-05 were used as outcome variables for grades 1 and 2. The kindergarten and first-grade forms of the ORA administered provides six separate scale scores, in letter recognition, word recognition, capitalization, writing, dictation, and a composite reading score. The second-grade forms provide scores for word recognition, writing, dictation, and composite reading. The subscale scores were factor-analyzed using principal components analysis to generate regression-based factor scores for use in subsequent analyses. For 2004-05 first graders, a single factor accounted for 45.7% of the variance across 2004-05 ORA subtests. For 2004-05 second graders, a single factor accounted for 63.0% of the variance across the four 2004-05 ORA subtests. The regression-based factor scores were then converted to nonmal curve equivalent (NCE) scores with mean of 50 and standard deviation of 21.06 to aid in the interpretation of results. The norm group for these NCE scores was comprised of all Little Rock students for whom data were available in a given year. Analyses A 2 (Compass versus comparison) X 2 (African American versus non-African American) X 3 (Homogeneous School Set) analysis of covariance was performed at each grade level (1 and 2), with 2004-05 ORA and ITBS test scores as outcome variables and free or reduced price lunch status and 2003-04 ORA test scores as covariates. Follow-up analyses of covariance were performed within levels of the independent variables when significant interaction effects were observed. Effect size 28 estimates were determined by computing mean differences between groups for which significant differences were observed, then dividing by the total standard deviation. In cases where the outcome variable was an NCE score, a standard deviation of 21.06 was used in the effect size estimate computation, because the population standard deviation is known. Table 7 provides an overview of pretests, posttests, and pretest-posttest correlations for the analyses of covariance. As shown, the covariates used were 2003-04 ORA scores in grades 1-3, ITBS scores in grade 6, and Benchmark scores in grades 5 and 7. In addition, a descriptive profile of 2004-05 mean ITBS NCE scores in Reading and Mathematics across grade levels by race was generated to provide on overall basis for comparing African American achievement to that of other students. Table 7. Covariate-Outcome Correlation Coefficients by Grade Level: LRPS Elementary Schools Grade 2003-04 Pretests (Covariates) 2004-05 Posttests (Outcomes) Covariate-Outcome r 1 ORA Dictation ITBS Reading NCE 0.51 ORA Capitalization ITBS Mathematics NCE o.5i ORA Word Recognition DRANCE1 0.582 2nd ORA Composite Score ITBS Reading NCE 0.61 2 ORA Composite Score ITBS Mathematics NCE 0.502 ORA Word Recognition DRANCE1 0.712 3' ORA Total Score ITBS Reading NCE 0.592 ORA Total Score ITBS Mathematics NCE o.5i 5lh Benchmark Literacy SS ITBS Reading NCE 0.772 Benchmark Math SS ITBS Mathematics NCE 0.842 6th ITBS Reading NCE ITBS Reading NCE 0.792 ITBS Mathematics Concepts NCE ITBS Total Mathematics NCE 0.802 ITBS Reading NCE - 7th Benchmark Literacy 0.71 ' Benchmark Mathematics ITBS Mathematics NCE 0.782 'Score derived from factor analysis and normed on Little Rock School District students. 2Significant at p \u0026lt; .01. - 29 RESULTS First Grade !TBS Reading NCE. The model accounted for 32.4 % of the variance in 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE scores. ANCOVA indicated significant main effects for 2003-04 ORA dictation (F, .1335 = 338.4, p \u0026lt; .001 ), free lunch status (F ,.1335 = 25.4, p \u0026lt; .001 ), race (F1.1335 = 12.92, p \u0026lt;.001 }, treatment (F 1_1335 = 5.827, p = 0.02), and School Set (F2_1335 = 3.00, p = .05). Variables that predicted a significant amount of variance in the outcome accounted for 19.5% of the variance in 2004-05 ITBS Reading scores. As shown in Figure 1, most of the explained variance (17%) was attributable to 2003-04 ORA dictation scores, with modest percentages attributable to free lunch status (1 .3%), race (0.6%), treatment (0.3%), or School Set (0 .3%). Post hoc comparisons showed that non-African American students had a significantly higher adjusted mean score (M' = 57.5) than African American students (M' = 52.4\nES = -0.25)\ncomparison students had a significantly higher adjusted mean score (M' = 56.6) than Compass students (M' = 53.4\nES = -0 .16)\nand students in majority White, low-poverty schools had a significantly higher adjusted mean score (M' = 57.4) than students in majority African American, highpoverty schools (M' = 52.8\nES = -0.23). 30 0.3% 0.6% 1 0.3% 1.3% 17.0%  Pretest  Free Lunch  Race  School Set  Treatment Figure 1. Percentage of Variance Explained in 2004-05 ITBS Outcomes by Significant Predictor: First Grade Table 8 shows mean ITBS Reading NCE scores by race, treatment, and School Set. Observed mean scores generally fell near or above the national average of 50.0, with the lowest average observed score of 46.5 observed for comparison group African American students in high-poverty, majority African American schools. This score is about one-sixth of a standard deviation below the national average. 31 Table 8. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: First Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD ES N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 68.52 60.45 15.8 21 Majority White Medium Poverty, 65.34 59.14 19.9 79 Integrated High Poverty, 52.98 56.85 18.9 56 Majority African American Compass Low Poverty, 66.59 57.75 18.2 -0.13 108 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 63.18 58.08 20.0 -0.05 114 Integrated High Poverty, 53.58 52.90 20.6 -0 .19 60 Majority African American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 61 .83 59.96 17.5 12 American Majority White - Medium Poverty, 53 .39 52.34 17.4 129 Integrated High Poverty, 46.53 50.96 19.8 273 Majority African American Compass Low Poverty, 54.37 51 .50 21 .5 -0.40 43 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 49.48 49.45 17.2 -0.14 156 Integrated High Poverty, 46.74 50.40 17.7 -0.03 298 Majority African American 32 ORA NCE. The model accounted for 24 .6% of the variance in 2005 ORA NCE scores. ANCOVA indicated a significant main effects for 2003-04 ORA Word Recognition {F1.2002 = 534.0, p \u0026lt; .001\n20.0% of variance accounted for) and treatment status (F1.2002 = 9.15, p \u0026lt;.01\n0.3% of variance accounted for), and a significant interaction effect between treatment status and School Set (F22002 = 3.33, p \u0026lt;.05\n0.2% of variance accounted for). Follow-up analyses revealed that Compass students in majority White, low-poverty scores had a significantly higher adjusted mean score (M' = 54.5\nES = +0.41) than comparison students in similar schools (M' = 45.9\nsee Figure 2). 30.00- 55.0D - 50.00 - 45.00- 40 .00 - J 5UI! 45.80 I Lov,.\nPove,t y, t ,laio1 ity V'vhite .. .. 50 .74 I t.ledium Pove,ty. t11tegI:ited School Set I High Pove11y, t ,1ajorit y .A. t, ican .American T1 eatrnent --Comparison - - - Compass Figure 2. Adjusted Mean DRA NCE by School Set and Treatment Status: 2004-05 First Grade 33 - Table 9 shows mean ORA NCE scores by race, treatment, and School Set. Mean observed DRA NCE scores ranged from a low of M = 43.64 for non-African American comparison students in high poverty, majority African American schools to a high of M = 57.69 for non-African American Compass students in low-poverty, majority White schools. Table 9. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ORA NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: First Grade Adjusted Race Treatment School Set Mean Mean SD ES N Comparison Low Poverty, 51.64 48.58 30.1 40 Non-AA Majority White Medium Poverty, 55.32 50.44 14.7 112 Integrated High Poverty, 43.64 46.57 28.9 103 Majority African American Compass Low Poverty, 59.33 53.20 11.6 0.22 154 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 54.92 50.70 18.9 0.01 163 Integrated High Poverty, 48.76 48.84 21.4 0.11 97 Majority African American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 44.22 43.13 38.1 21 American Majority White Medium Poverty, 49.28 48.35 22.3 171 Integrated High Poverty, 47.38 50.38 21.6 388 Majority African American Compass Low Poverty, 57.69 55.82 10.2 0.60 60 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 51 .74 50.78 16.7 0.12 196 Integrated High Poverty, 46.72 49.29 21.2 -0.05 511 Majority African American 34 /TBS Mathematics NCE. The model accounted for 38.8% of the variance in ITBS Mathematics NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 ORA Capitalization (F, .1323 = 303.1, p \u0026lt;.001\n13.9% of variance accounted for), African American status (F, .1323=44.5, p \u0026lt; .001\n2% of variance accounted for), eligibility for free lunch (F, .1323=26.5, p \u0026lt; .001\n1.2% of variance accounted for), and School Set (F2_1323=18.9, p =.001\n0.6% of variance accounted for). Follow-up analyses showed that: (a) African American students had a significantly lower adjusted mean score (M' = 42.44\nES= -0.44) than White students (M' = 51.70), and (b) students attending high-poverty, majority African American schools had a significantly lower adjusted mean (M' =43.76) than students attending either medium poverty, integrated schools (M' = 47.12\nES= +0.16) or low-poverty, majority White schools (M'= 50.34\nES= +0.38). As shown in Table 10, African American students in mediumpoverty, integrated schools and in high-poverty, majority African American schools scored substantially below the national average of 50.0. 35 Table 10. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: First Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD ES N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 62.10 55.23 18.3 20 Majority White Medium Poverty, 58.75 52.26 21.0 76 Integrated High Poverty, 44.19 47.67 20.9 Majority African American 58 Compass Low Poverty, 65.66 56.62 16.5 0.07 108 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 57.78 51 .81 19.8 -0.02 114 Integrated High Poverty, 46.78 46.60 16.1 -0.05 58 Majority African American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 46.25 45.10 20.7 12 American Majority White Medium Poverty, 42.95 41 .30 15.5 122 - Integrated High Poverty, 37.18 40.02 19.7 268 Majority African American Compass Low Poverty, 47.37 44.40 16.7 -0 .03 43 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 41.68 43.10 18.5 0.09 161 Integrated High Poverty, 35.86 40.73 16.5 0.03 297 Majority African American 36 Second Grade /TBS Reading NCE. The model accounted for 47.2% of the variance in ITBS Reading NCE scores . Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 ORA Composite scores (F1.1347 = 723.1, p \u0026lt;.001\n28.1 % of variance accounted for), African American status (F 1_1347 = 57.8, p \u0026lt;.001\n2.2% of variance accounted for), and free lunch status (F 1.1347 = 29.0, p \u0026lt;.001\n1.1 % of variance accounted for). A significant interaction was observed between treatment and School Set (F2,1347 = 9.95, p \u0026lt;.001 ). Follow-up tests showed that comparison students had significantly higher adjusted mean scores (M' =51 .88) than Compass students (M' =57.44\nES = -0.26) in medium-poverty, integrated schools, while Compass students had significantly higher adjusted mean scores (M'= 53.35\nES = +0.15) than comparison students (M' =50.17) in high-poverty, majority African American schools (see Figure 3). As shown in Table 11 all groups scored near or above the national average of 50.0 except African American comparison students in high poverty, majority African American schools. 37 - Table 11. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Second Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 66.07 59.95 22.4 29 Majority White Medium 68.52 64.40 20.8 86 Poverty, Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 48.00 53.35 20.4 54 American Compass Low Poverty, 70.45 61.48 20.0 O.Q7 Learning Majority White 88 Medium Poverty, 62.01 55.25 20.9 -0.43 106 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 55.67 57.02 23.0 0.17 66 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 52.35 48.05 16.6 23 American Majority White Medium Poverty, 51 .07 50.48 19.1 110 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 43.05 46.99 18.8 264 American Compass Low Poverty, 57.47 54.31 19.8 0.30 60 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 48.82 48.50 20.5 -0 .09 169 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 46.34 49.68 18.4 0.13 306 American 38 58 56 54 - 50 ~ ' Low Poverty. tAajority'1',hite \\ ' ' \\ Medium Poverty , Integrated School Set High Poverty . Majority t .trican .A.111erica11 Treatment - Comparison - -  Compass Figure 3. Mean Adjusted ITBS Reading NCE Scores by Treatment and School Set: 2004-05 Second Grade ORA NCE. The model accounted for 52.9% of the variance in ORA NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 ORA Word Recognition scores (F1.1482 = 1424.6, p \u0026lt;.001\n44.9% of variance explained), free lunch status (F 1_1482 = 19.76, p \u0026lt;.001\n0.6% of variance explained), and School Set (F2_1482 = 6.1, p \u0026lt;.01\n0.4% of variance explained). Follow-up tests indicated that in low-poverty, majority White schools had significantly higher adjusted mean scores (M' = 54.1 O ) than students in either medium poverty, integrated schools (M' = 49.57\nES = -0 .22) or students in highpoverty, majority African American schools (M' = 50.81\nES= -0.16). Students in low-poverty, majority White schools scored substantially above the district average of 50.0, regardless of race or treatment (see Table 12). No treatment effects (Compass vs. comparison) were indicated. 39 - Table 12. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 DRA NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Second Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES N Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, Majority White 57.64 52.05 20.4 30 Medium Poverty, Integrated 52.64 50.55 21.7 102 High Poverty, Majority African 47.45 51 .29 26.7 57 American Compass Low Poverty, Learning Majority White 64.65 57.69 8.9 0.27 96 Medium Poverty, Integrated 55.65 51.45 15.3 0.04 118 High Poverty, Majority African 49.25 50.98 24.5 -0.01 72 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, American Majority White 57.54 53.00 13.7 24 - Medium Poverty, Integrated 48.70 46.61 18.5 118 High Poverty, Majority African 45.73 50.80 23.9 292 American Compass Low Poverty, Learning Majority White 55.83 53.66 18.1 0.03 62 Medium Poverty, Integrated 51 .19 49.65 16.8 0.14 189 High Poverty, Majority African 48 .66 50.15 20.3 -0.03 336 American 40 /TBS Mathematics NCE. The model accounted for 42.3% of the variance in ITBS Mathematics NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 ORA Composite score (F1,1354 = 358.54, p \u0026lt;.001 ), African American status (F1 ,1354 = 99.36, p \u0026lt;.001 ), and free lunch status (F1,1354 = 26.7, p \u0026lt;.001 ). Post hoc comparisons indicated that non-African American students had a significantly higher adjusted mean (M' = 53.60) than African American students (M' = 41. 78\nES = - 0.56). A significant interaction effect was observed between treatment and School Set (F2_1354 = 4.09, p =0.02). Follow-up tests, as graphically depicted in Figure 4, indicated that, in low-poverty majority White schools, Compass students had a significantly higher adjusted mean (M' = 54.80) than comparison students (M' = 49.23\nES = +0.26). The mean NCE scores for African American students in either treatment at medium-poverty, integrated or high poverty, majority African American schools were substantially below the national average (see Table 13). 41 - Table 13. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Second Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD ES N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 60.97 55.82 22.0 29 Majority White Medium Poverty, 59.65 55.88 20.1 85 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 42.44 46.60 20.1 54 American Compass Low Poverty, 69.31 61 .98 19.2 0.29 89 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 56.28 50.98 20.9 -0.23 106 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 49.26 50.30 21 .6 0.18 66 American - African- Comparison Low Poverty, 45.83 42.64 17.9 American Majority White 23 Medium Poverty, 41 .86 41 .66 17.5 114 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 34 .29 37.42 16.2 266 American Compass Low Poverty, 49.97 47.61 17.9 0.24 60 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 42.59 42.47 20.3 0.04 169 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 36.25 38.90 14.7 0.07 307 American 42 56 - 50- 48- 44- J ~-1 sj . . . . .  I Low Pove1ty. I ,lcijo1 rt 1 \\,\\ hrte . . . . . . r:wT:l .. ... I l,ledium Pove1t y, lntegrnted School Set -1~.0 I i High Pove1ty, t,lcijo1 rty t-.11 ican .~meric:in Treatment - Comprnison   -  Compass Figure 4. Mean Adjusted ITBS Mathematics NCE Scores by Treatment and School Set: 2004- 05 Second Grade Third Grade /TBS Reading NCE. The ANCOVA model explained 48.0% of the variance in 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 ORA Composite scores (F1,1310 =600.8, p \u0026lt;.01\n15.1% of variance explained), African American status (F1,1310 = 71 .6, p \u0026lt; .01\n4.2% of variance explained), free lunch status (F 1,1310 = 28.11 , p \u0026lt; .01\n1.1 % of variance explained) and School Set (F2. 1310 = 21 .57\np \u0026lt;.001\n1.3% of variance explained). A significant interaction effect was observed between African American status and School Set (F2.1310 = 6.19, p \u0026lt; .01 ). As shown in Figure 5, the interaction was ordinal over levels of race. Mean adjusted scores for African American students were sign ificantly lower than 43 those for students of other races in low-poverty majority White schools (M' = 52.79 versus M' =63.86\nES= -0.52), in medium-poverty, integrated schools (M' = 49.99 versus M' = 60.39\nES= -0.49), or high-poverty, majority African American schools (M' = 46.93 versus M' = 53.48\nES= -0 .31\nsee Figure 5). The interaction was attributable to a successively widening achievement gap between African American and other students as the percentage of poor and African American students decreased. Most groups performed near or above the national average, except for African American students attending high-poverty majority African American schools, who scored substantially below the national average (see Table 14). 44 Table 14. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Third Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 72.47 65.84 18.4 34 Majority White Medium Poverty, 63.07 59.21 20.5 76 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 50.78 50.52 18.8 45 American Compass Low Poverty, 72.84 64.18 17.6 -0.08 91 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 61.93 57.62 23.3 -0.08 123 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 50.45 50.70 18.9 0.01 53 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 49.52 52.66 17.0 23 - American Majority White Medium Poverty, 46.46 49.28 17.1 110 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 43.46 46.18 17.5 264 American Compass Low Poverty, 51 .26 48.40 13.3 -0.20 47 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 46.86 47.72 17.8 -0.07 188 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 43.05 45.67 16.3 -0 .02 270 American 45 - 55 \u0026amp;~...7 ~.). .. ... 50 45 Low Pc,verty. l,lctiorij y',',hite ... ., , JU.. P..J .. I ,ledium Poverty, lntegrmed School Set .. .. .. .. High Povert 1, l,k1iority Africm1 ,t!merican Pao:8 -Other .t-.fricrn1 ti.meric:m Figure 5. Mean Adjusted ITBS Reading NCE Scores by Race and School Set: 2004-05 Third Grade /TBS Mathematics NCE. The model explained 42.0% of the variance in 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2004 ORA Composite scores {F11304 =426.4, p \u0026lt;.01\n18.5% of variance explained), African American status (F1,1304 = 111 .3, p \u0026lt; .01\n4.8% of variance explained), free lunch status (F 1,1304 = 17 .3, p \u0026lt; .01\n0.7% of variance explained) and School Set (F2 1304 = 6.12\np \u0026lt;.01\n0.5% of variance explained). Significant interaction effects were observed between African American status and School Set (F2., 304 = 3.36, p \u0026lt; .05) and treatment and School Set (F2,1304 = 3.10, p \u0026lt; .05). Followup analyses of the treatment X School Set interaction showed that Compass students in low-poverty majority White schools had a significantly higher adjusted posttest mean (M' = 55.93\nES = +0.21) 46 than their counterparts attending similar schools (M'=51.59\nsee Figure 6). Treatment differences in other School Sets were nonsignificant. Follow-up analyses of the race X School Set interaction indicated that non-African American students in all school types performed significantly higher than African American students in all school types, but the gap was especially large in low-poverty majority White schools (see Figure 7). As Table 15 shows, non-African American students achieved at or above the national average score regardless of treatment or School Set, whereas African American students achieved substantially below the national average in every condition except Compass students in low-poverty majority White schools. 47 - Table 15. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Third Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES N Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, Majority White 65.21 59.51 18.04 34 Medium Poverty, Integrated 62.11 58.77 19.18 75 High Poverty, Majority African 55.41 55.09 19.56 44 American Compass Low Poverty, Learning Majority White 72.96 65.43 17.32 0.28 91 Medium Poverty, Integrated 60.71 56.99 20.37 -0.08 123 High Poverty, Majority African 51 .57 51 .78 18.42 -0.16 53 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, American Majority White 40.87 43.67 16.81 23 - Medium Poverty, Integrated 45.18 47.69 18.06 110 High Poverty, Majority African 42.89 45.21 17.70 260 American Compass Low Poverty, Learning Majority White 48.91 46.42 15.75 0.13 47 Medium Poverty, Integrated 44.14 44.91 17.63 -0.13 188 High Poverty, Majority African 40.50 42.78 18.29 -0.12 270 American 48 \\ Tr,-:itrn..,nt -- l ump::iri::\n011 , - -  ('\" 1..lllj)CICS ' \\ ::\n4- \\ 48 - I L1J \\t\u0026lt;/ Puv~1tv 1 M::ii,\n,rity 'v'\\hit,.. '\\ \\ ' ' \\ J5U.OG I ' ... I 1,1..\n,Jium Puvee11y, lnteqr::it.\nd School Set I HiJfl P,Jv.,\n1ty. 1,h:iic,rity A fri,:::111 .ll.meri,,011 Figure 6. Mean Adjusted ITBS Mathematics NCE Scores by Treatment and School Set: 2004-05 Third Grade 49 60- 55- 50- 45- 62.47 57 .88 -~ Ji5.o5 l - - ........ I Low Poverty, Majority White I Medium Poverty, Integrated School Set 53.43 ........ ffe I High Poverty, Majority African American Race -Non-AA __ African American Figure 7. Mean Adjusted ITBS Mathematics NCE Scores by Race and School Set: 2004-05 Third Grade Fifth Grade /TBS Reading NCE. The AN COVA accounted for 62.1 % of the variance in ITBS Reading NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 Benchmark Literacy scale scores (F, .1507 = 1320.1, p \u0026lt;.001\n46.7% of variance explained), African American status (F, .1507 = 62.2, p \u0026lt; .001\n4.0% of variance explained), free lunch status (F, .1507 = 17.2, p = .01\n1.1 % of variance explained) and School Set (F2.1507 = 3.3\np \u0026lt;.05\n0.4% of variance explained). A significant interaction effect was observed between African American status and School Set (F2.1507 = 4.08, p \u0026lt; .05). Follow-up analyses of the race X School Set interaction indicated that non-African American students in all school types performed significantly higher than African American students in all school types, but the gap was especially large in low-poverty majority White schools (see Figure 8). Students in most 50 treatment X School Set categories performed near or above the national average, with the exception of African American students attending high-poverty majority African American schools-these students scored nearly one-half of a standard deviation below the national average regardless of treatment condition (see Table 16). Table 16. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Fifth Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD ES N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 76.70 56.72 23.29 33 Majority White Medium Poverty, 66.57 54.90 19.77 94 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 47.33 48.55 20.00 60 American Compass Low Poverty, 68.89 56.82 18.33 0.00 91 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 64.60 53.71 20.29 -0.06 Integrated 124 High Poverty, Majority African 53.07 52.80 17.44 0.20 55 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 46.38 43.79 19.70 26 American Majority White Medium Poverty, 45.48 46.11 18.49 109 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 39.56 46.57 17.18 304 American Compass Low Poverty, 51 .27 49.81 19.54 0.29 77 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 46.22 45.80 16.19 -0.01 182 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 40.45 46.48 16.70 0.00 366 American 51 47 ,,'.\nL1~1w P1Jv..-1ty. l:l\n:i jc,1ity V\\-hit.- J,.1.-.Jiurn h ,v.-11y . Hi,il1 P,.,v.-11y, Int.-, II ~ ... ,J l:laj,_,, ity P..tri,-011 ,1,_ m.-1i, :::111 School Set Afli'Oll /'.',.n,..,ri,\n:in Figure 8. Mean Adjusted ITBS Reading NCE Scores by Race and School Set: 2004-05 Fifth Grade /TBS Mathematics NCE. The ANCOVA accounted for 71 .9% of the variance in ITBS Reading NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores (F 1 1504 = 2368.1, p \u0026lt;.001\n61.2% of variance explained), African American status (F1.1504 = 37 .9, p \u0026lt; .001\n2.5% of variance explained), free lunch status (F1,1504 = 4.4, p \u0026lt;.05\n0.3% of variance explained) and School Set (F2 1504 = 5.5\np \u0026lt;.01\n0. 7% of variance explained). African American students had a significantly lower adjusted mean score (M' = 46.30) than other students (M' = 51 .63). A significant interaction effect was observed between treatment status and School Set (F2.1504 = 5.48, p \u0026lt; .01 ). Post hoc comparisons revealed that the comparison group had a significantly higher adjusted mean (M'=51.90) than the Compass group (M'=48.81\nES =-0.15) in medium-poverty, integrated schools, while the Compass students had a significantly higher mean (48.67\nES= +0.10) 52 than comparison students (M' = 46.60) in high-poverty African American schools (see Figure 9). As shown in Table 17, African American students scored below the national average of 50.0 regardless of school type or treatment, while other students scored above the national average regardless of school type or treatment. Table 17. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Fifth Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD ES N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 73.73 52.58 20.73 33 Majority White Medium Poverty, 66.69 55.45 21.38 94 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 51 .03 48.47 20.32 60 American Compass Low Poverty, 69.75 51 .64 17.63 -0.04 91 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 63.48 51 .04 21.28 -0.21 124 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 53.96 50.60 21.41 0.10 55 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 47.35 44.87 21 .56 26 American Majority White Medium Poverty, 44.30 48.36 19.66 109 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 38.24 44.74 17.81 301 American Compass Low Poverty, 47.22 46.54 19.46 0.08 77 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 43.92 46.58 16.60 -0 .08 182 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 39.85 46.74 18.20 0.09 366 American 53 48 Lc, ,.iv p,_, ,,,..1ty, I 1l8i.\u0026gt;I tty 'v\"il1tt.- ----~148.811 ~ - - - - ,6---' 1,1.-,Jilllll Puv .. 1t y, lrrt.-,Jr:rt.-.J School Set Hi, 1h P,Jv.-rty. li18i.rtty 6 f1i, 811 .\u0026lt;l 111.-1 i1:~,n - ( ,_,1n1 ,::u i::::,.,n -   t vmpoc3 Figure 9. Mean Adjusted ITBS Mathematics NCE Scores by Treatment and School Set: 2004-05 Fifth Grade Sixth Grade /TBS Reading NCE. The model accounted for 63.5% of the variance in !TBS Reading NCE scores. Only two significant main effects were observed: 2003-04 !TBS Reading scores (F,.556 = 834.7, p \u0026lt;.001) and race (F,.556 = 4.58, p \u0026lt;.05). African American students had a statistically significantly lower adjusted mean score {M'= 38. 77) than other students (M'= 41.91 ), although the magnitude of the difference was small. All groups except non-African American comparison students scored substantially below the national average (see Table 18). 54 - Table 18. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race and Treatment: Sixth Grade Race Treatment Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES N Non-AA Comparison 54.06 42.32 24.04 33 Compass 40 .56 41 .50 19.78 -0.04 39 Learning African- Comparison 37.29 38.28 17.53 209 American Compass 38.76 39.27 18.15 0.05 281 Learning /TBS Mathematics NCE. The model accounted for 64.6% of the variance in ITBS Reading NCE scores. The only significant main effect was for 2003-04 ITBS Reading scores (F1,576 = 920.0, p \u0026lt;.001\n61.5% of variance accounted for). As shown in Table 19, African American students in both the comparison and the Compass groups scored nearly a standard deviation below the national average (national M = 50, SD= 21 .06). Table 19. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race and Treatment: Sixth Grade Race Treatment Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES Non-AA Comparison 51 .03 39.24 25.05 Compass 42.80 38.60 21 .21 -0.03 Learning N 35 40 African- Comparison 33.63 34.66 19.35 223 American Compass 36.33 37.57 16.56 0.14 284 Learning 55 Seventh Grade /TBS Reading NCE. The model explained 51.6% of the variance in ITBS Reading NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 Benchmark Literacy scale scores (F, .528 = 458.1, p \u0026lt;.001\n46.5% of variance), race (F1.528 = 8.15, p \u0026lt;.01\n1.5% of variance), treatment (F1.528 = 7.01 , p \u0026lt;.01\n1.3% of variance), and free lunch status (F1.528 = 5.73, p \u0026lt;.05\n1.1 % of variance). Follow-up tests showed that African American students had significantly lower adjusted mean scores (M' = 38.65) than other students (M' = 43.51), and that Compass learning students had significantly lower adjusted mean scores (M' = 38.85\nES= -0.21) than comparison students (M' = 43.31 ). As shown in Table 20, African American students performed substantially below the national average (about onehalf standard deviation), while other students performed at or near the national average. Table 20. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race and Treatment: Seventh Grade Race Treatment Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES N Non-AA Comparison 50.85 46.63 19.31 26 Compass 46.70 40.40 18.79 -0.30 33 Learning African- Comparison 38.56 40.00 15.85 230 American Compass 37.36 37 .30 17.79 -0.13 245 Learning /TBS Mathematics NCE. The model explained 60. 7% of the variance in ITBS Mathematics scores. Only two significant main effects were observed: 2004 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores (F1,525 = 686.2, p \u0026lt;.001\n56.7% of variance) and race (F,.525 = 5.15, p \u0026lt;.05). African American students had a statistically significantly lower adjusted mean score (M'= 38.52) than other students (M' = 42.19), although the magnitude of the difference was small. As with Reading, African American students performed substantially below the national average (about one-half standard deviation), while other students performed at or near the national average (see Table 21 ). 56 - Table 21 . Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race and Treatment: Seventh Grade Race Treatment Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES N Non-AA Comparison 53.12 44.22 17.21 25 Compass 49.45 40.15 16.62 -0.19 33 Learning African- Comparison 37.25 38.16 16.88 American 229 Compass 37 .57 38.88 17.94 0.03 244 Learning Descriptive Profile of ITBS Mean NCE scores Reading. Figure 10 shows mean ITBS Reading NCE scores for African American and other students across grades 1 to 9. As seen in the figure, African American students in first grade score near the national average, but their performance declines across successive grade levels until grade 8, where the mean NCE was nearly one-half of a standard deviation below the national average. For other students, mean NCE scores were between 60 and 65 at all grades levels, or approximately onehalf standard deviation above the national average. Thus, the achievement gap is substantially wider at higher grade levels. 57 - t35- -- 45 - .... 40- 35- I I I I 1 ,-., 3 4 -... I I 5 13 GRADE - - - 1 I ,' 8 I ~ Ra,:~ - J-Jon- /Jo.A __ .t .fricon ,t .mericon Figure 10. Mean 2004-05 ITBS Reading Score by Grade Level and Race. Note: The norm group average score is 50.0 Mathematics. As seen in Figure 11, the patterns of mean ITBS Mathematics scores for African American and other students are strikingly similar, with a distinct peak occurring in fourth grade for both groups. The achievement gap is relatively constant across grade levels, with some widening of the gap at upper grade levels. As with Reading, African American students generally performed about one-half standard deviation below the national average, while other students generally performed about one-half standard deviation above the national average. 58 - 70 GO 50 ,.. / I' 40 / --I 2 3 4 ' ' ' ,,,. .,, 5 ,3 GRADE ..... ..... .. 8 -- 9 R:.ice -Non-/\u0026gt; .. A. .t,.fricrn1 .A.merican Figure 11. Mean 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics Score Grade Level and Race. Note: The norm group average score is 50.0. 59 - CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of this present study are presented in relation to each of the major research questions in the following sections. Primary Evaluation Question What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African American and other students? What are the effects of the Compass Learning program on student achievement in Reading and Mathematics? Is the program effective in meeting the academic needs of African American students? The only simple main effects of Compass Learning on students were statistically significant negative effects on first grade ITBS Reading (ES= -0.16) Where program effects were observed, they varied by school context: On first-grade ORA, Compass students had significantly higher adjusted mean scores than comparison students only in low-poverty majority White schools (ES = +0.26). On second-grade ITBS Reading, comparison students had higher mean scores than Compass students in medium-poverty integrated schools (ES = -0.26), while Compass students had higher mean scores in high-poverty majority African American schools (ES = +0.15). On second-grade ITBS Mathematics, Compass students had significantly higher adjusted mean scores than comparison students only in low-poverty majority White schools (ES = +0.38). On third-grade ITBS Mathematics, Compass students had significantly higher adjusted mean scores than comparison students only in low-poverty majority White schools (ES = +0.26). On fifth-grade ITBS Mathematics, comparison students had higher mean scores than Compass students in medium-poverty integrated schools (ES = -0.15), while Compass students had higher mean scores in high-poverty majority African American schools (ES = +0.10). Across all grades, subjects, and achievement measures, a total of 14 separate analyses (8 Reading\n6 Math) examining treatment x School Set effects were conducted. Of these, 4 (50%) in Reading and 3 (50%) in Math showed no significant treatment main effects or interactions. Where significant effects did occur in Reading, two were main effects, respectively, showing comparison group advantages over Compass in Grade 1-ITBS (ES= -.25) and Grade 7-ITBS (ES= -0.21). The 60 other two effects were interactions, one showing a Compass advantage within the low-poverty School Set (ES = +0.41) in Grade 1-DRA, and the other showing a comparison group advantage within the medium-poverty School Set (ES = -0 .26) in Grade 2-ITBS. Thus, taken as a whole, the evidence provided by this study suggests that usage of Compass Learning was not associated with noticeable achievement gains in Reading for the overall sample of students or for African American students in particular. Significant effects in Math were associated with three interactions, showing Compass advantages in low-poverty schools in Grade 2-ITBS (ES = +0.26) and Grade 3-ITBS (ES = +0.26), and in high-poverty schools in Grade 5-ITBS (ES= +0.10). Comparison schools showed an advantage in medium-poverty schools in Grade 5-ITBS (ES = -0.15). Overall, Compass learning effects were inconsistent but positive in direction in Mathematics. Benefits were more frequent in lowpoverty than high-poverty schools. A summary of aggregate effect sizes across grades, subjects, and tests is provided in Figures 11 and 12. Specifically, the box plots in Figure 11 show the interquartile ranges (middle 50% distribution) of the computed effect sizes for each School Setting. As can be seen, the ranges extend above ES = +0.20 only for the low-poverty setting. The median effect size, represented by the dark horizontal lines in Figure 11 and the bar graphs in Figure 12, indicate a weak positive effect of Compass in the low-poverty setting but essentially zero effects in the medium- and high-poverty settings. 61 0.60 - 0.40 - 0.20 - en w 0.00 - -0.20 - -0.40 - -- I Low Poverty, MaJority White T _L I Medium Poverty, Integrated School Setting T I I J_ I High Poverty, Majority African American Figure 12. Box Plot of Compass Learning Effect Size Estimates Across All Outcomes and Grade Levels by Setting: African American Students 62 0.15 0.11 0.10 -+--- 0. 05 +-----1 0.00 --1-------'-l ' ___ __,_ ____ ~---------~,---~, ----i -0.0.1 -0.05 -+---------------u_,,unt-4------------ -0.10 +----------------------- -0.15 Low Poverty, Majority White Medium Poverty, Integrated High Poverty, Majority AA Figure 13. Median Compass Learning Effect Size Estimates Across All Outcomes and Grade Levels by Setting: African American Students  How does the achievement of African American students compare to that of other students in the same or similar schools? In both Reading and Mathematics across grades 1-9, ~frican American students generally performed about one-half standard deviation below the national average, while other students generally performed about one-half standard deviation above the national average. The pattern of Mathematics achievement across grade levels is virtually identical between African American and other students (see Figure 11) African American achievement in Reading declines precipitously as grade levels increase, while the Reading achievement of other students remains relatively steady across grades (see Figure 10). 63 Supplemental (Step 2) Evaluation Questions What is the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 19 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? The observation data indicated that CL was implemented in well-equipped computer labs that provided one computer for each student. The CL labs were almost always supervised by both a lab attendant and a classroom teacher that were responsive to student questions and actively monitored classroom activities. The data also revealed that all students in each class, both African American and non-African American, equally participated and were highly engaged and attentive to the CL activities. The interview results indicated that most teachers routinely customized their classroom instruction based on CL performance. However, nearly one-half (45.2%) of the teachers responded that they never used CL reports on individual student performance, but rather frequently used class reports by ethnicity (59.8%) and by gender (64.6%). Overall, these results indicate that the quality and nature of CL implementation was generally effective with regard to how students use CL. However, the data also revealed that teachers more frequently based instructional decisions on class-level performance rather than Cl's recommended strategy of using student-level performance to achieve individualized instruction. With regard to the level of implementation, most students' scheduled time for CL activities fell below program recommendations of 60-minutes per content area per week. Thus, the quality, nature, and level of implementation was generally effective with regard to computer lab environments and student engagement during CL use, but was inconsistent with regard to the degree to which student CL activities were individualized and the amount of scheduled CL time. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the implementing schools? The Compasslearning program was implemented in 19 LRSD Title 1 schools comprised of student populations that were 67.9% African American during 2004-2005. Triangulation of data from multiple sources indicated that African American and non-African American students fully and equally participated in CL program activities at their schools. Specifically, the direct classroom observation data revealed that of 327 students in CL computer labs a// of the 277 African American and 50 nonAfrican American students were highly engaged in the use of CL in well-supported environments. 64 When lab attendants and technology specialists were asked which students used CL, the responses indicated a// students within the specified grade ranges regularly participated in CL classroom and lab activities. The district personnel involved with CL reported that CL is implemented in schools with the highest level of student need, or Title 1 Schools. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? There was common agreement across the teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists that the CL program was generally implemented well and that the teachers and administrators supported the use of CL in their schools. Teacher responses reflected their support for CL through their agreement that CL not only increased student learning but also increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement and was valuable for improving the academic achievement of African American students. Additionally, nearly three-fourths of the teachers agreed that they routinely aligned CL with their lessons and reviewed CL content in class. There was general consensus among the respondents that the strongest aspect of CL was program flexibility to meet individual student needs. However, teachers also identified reinforcement of skills and the curriculum as the strongest aspect of CL, whereas, the lab attendants and technology specialists noted alignment of CL with LSRD curriculum standards and student enjoyment or engagement as additional areas of strength. When asked about the weakness of the CL program, respondents from the three groups were concerned about software issues due to difficulty students had in using some aspects of the CL program. The teachers and lab attendants thought students needed more computer time to benefit from the program. The technology specialists remarked that the CL program lacked sufficient curriculum mapping. There was unanimous agreement that the CL program should be continued due to its positive effect on student learning. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The Parent Survey results reflect the target population for this evaluation in that over 84% of the surveys represented African American children who use CL at school. Most parents responded that they were aware of CL and believed that the program was an important part of their child or children's education. However, there was less agreement that CL increased student interest in school or improved achievement in math and reading. Reasoning behind these responses was revealed in 65 remarks to open-ended questions, which suggested that parents' understanding of CL was somewhat misguided. Most parents seemed to believe that their children attended the computer lab to learn about computers, rather than to improve math and reading skills. For example, the most common reply regarding the \"best\" part of CL was improving computer skills and the \"worst\" aspect was possible access to inappropriate Internet-based materials - both of which were unrelated to use of CL. Responses from less than 20% of the parents reflected a greater understanding of the overall purpose of CL in that their reported \"best\" aspect of the program was improvement of reading and math skills and the worst aspect was replacement of traditional learning with computer-based learning. When parents were asked about what changes they would like to see in CUcomputer lab program, half wanted more computer time for their children. However, the data suggested that this extra time was requested to improve students' computer skills. The parents that suggested more variety in CL lessons seemed to have a better grasp of Cl's purpose. Overall, parents were supportive of their child or children using computers, but many were unaware of the overall instructional purpose the CL program. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? Of the four LRSD principals who no longer used CL at their schools, three indicated that CL was generally effective and that teachers liked it, however, the program was discontinued due to technical problems. One of the principals, however, was less positive about CL as a result of teacher complaints about the program. Specifically, teachers indicated it took too much time to align CL activities with their classroom lesson plans, there were too many technical problems, and they did not like monitoring the CL computer lab. Three of the four principals adopted different integrated learning systems (ILSs}, while one chose to implement a non-lLS computer integration model. The principals that adopted the new programs indicated that fewer technical problems had occurred and teacher acceptance was greater. These results suggest that although CL use had been discontinued at the four schools, the principals had a generally positive regard for the use of technology to improve student learning in schools with a predominately African American population. 66 Appendix A Compasslearning Schools by Percentage of African American Students 67 Little Rock School District Compasslearning Schools by Percentage of African American Students School Name CL Schools in 2004-2005: Elementary Schools Bale Booker Brady Carver Chicot Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Mabelvale McDermott Otter Creek Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens Wakefield Williams Past CL Participating Schools: Elementary School Mitchell Middle Schools Cloverdale Henderson High School Accelerated Learning Center (ALC) Percentage of African American Students 82% 53% 78% 52% 73% 75% 20% 96% 26% 88% 53% 80% 62% 60% 100% 67% 95% 78% 52% 96% 82% 82% 92% 68 Appendix B 2004-2005 Time Scheduled for Compasslearning by School and Grade 69 Little Rock School District 2004-2005 Time* Scheduled for Compasslearning by School and Grade Grade Level School K 2nd 3rd McDermott 60 60 60 60 Williams 60 60 60 60 Carver 60 60 60 60 Fair Park 60 60 60 60 Forest Park n/a 30 60 60 Chicot n/a n/a 45 45 Rightsell 45 45 45 45 Stephens 30 30 30 30 Booker 30 30 30 30 Brady 30 30 30 30 Bale n/a n/a n/a 30 Franklin 30 30 30 30 Fulbright 30 30 30 30 Geyer Springs n/a 30 30 30 Gibbs 30 30 30 30 Mabelvale 30 30 30 30 Otter Creek 30 30 30 30 Rockefeller n/a n/a n/a n/a Wakefield 30 30 30 30 Overall averages 39.6 38.4 40.6 40.0  Time in minutes .. \"nla\" indicates grade does not use CompassLeaming 4th 5th 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 45 45 45 45 60 60 60 60 45 45 30 n/a 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 43.4 44.1 School average 60 60 60 60 54 45 45 40 40 35 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 40.5 70 Appendix C Evaluation Instruments 71 Survey of Computer Use for Compasslearning School ____________ Observer Name __________ Observation Date Grade(s) Observed ______ Setting: __ Classroom __ Lab Time In __ Time Out Number of Students Using CompassLeaming: __ African American __ Non-African American Number of Teachers present: _ Classroom Teacher(s) _ lab attendant(s) _ technology specialist(s) Number of Classes observed during the two hours: ___ _ Computer Configuration and Use How many computers were available for Compasslearning? One 2-4 5-10 11 or more How frequently did malfunctions occur on computers used for Compasslearning? Never _Rarely _ Occasionally _ Frequently _ Extensively Compasslearning Activities In which subject areas did students complete CompassLearning work ( check all that were observed)? _ Language Arts Social Studies Mathematics _Writing _ Reading Cross-Curricular Science TALLY the types of questions students asked while using CompassLearning. _ Content area (e.g. how to solve a problem\nthe meaning of a word) _ Software use (e.g., how to log in\nhow to move to next section, how to take a test) _ Computer use (e.g., how to get the mouse or keyboard to work properly) _ Non-CompassLeaming questions. (e.g., Do I have to sit next to John? Can I go to the restroom?) What was the overall level of African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CompassLearning? Low Moderate _High What was the level of academically focused class time? Low Moderate _High Observer Notes Most of the computers used for Compasslearning were _ Up-to-date _ Aging but adequate _ Outdated/limited capacity During the observation, computers were used for CompassLeaming by _ Only a few students (less than 10%) _ Some students (about 10-50%) _ Most (students about 51-90%) _ Nearly all or all students (91-100%) What types of instructions were given to students at the start of the lesson (check all that were observed)? _ Content area review (e.g. reading, math) _ Software use (e.g., how to log in, find correct lesson) _ Computer use (e.g., locate software, use mouse) Classroom behavior rules _ No instructions were given What was the predominate role of the teacher(s) during student use of CompassLeaming? _ Continuously moved among students to actively monitor student work and answer questions _ Occasionally moved among students to monitor student work and answer questions _ Rarely moved among students to monitor student work and answer questions _ Remained at one location (e.g., at desk) rather than moving among the students. What was the overall level of NON-African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CompassLeaming? Low Moderate _High 72 Teacher Compasslearning Questionnaire (TCLQ) School ______ _ Your Gender__ Your Ethnicity _________ _ Do you know about the Compasslearning (computer lab) program at your school? Yes No If Yes, please answer the remaining questions. If No, please stop hear and return the survey when they are collected. TCLQ Items 2, ~ ~ Ii i 2, ~ I! l ij I~ z 1. Most of our school computers that are used for Compasslearning are kept in good working condition. 2. I can readily obtain answers to questions about Compasslearning. 3. The use of Compasslearning has increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement in learning. 4. Parents and community members support our school's use of Compasslearning. 5. The use of Compasslearning has increased student learning and achievement. 6. I am able to align Compasslearning with my lessons and the district's standards-based curriculum. 7. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African American students. 8. I have received enough training to address student learning needs through the use Compasslearning resources. 9. My computer skills are adequate to access Compasslearning resources. 10. The administration fully supports teacher use of  Compasslearning resources. 11. I routinely customize Compasslearning activities to meet the individual needs of students. 12. Our school has a well-developed plan that guides the Compasslearning program. 13. I routinely provide academic review of content covered during student use of Compasslearning. 14. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Compasslearning program. 15. I routinely modify my instructional practices on the basis of student performance in Compasslearning. 16. The use of Compasslearning has improved the quality of student work. 73 Directions: Please use the space provided to write a brief response to the following questions. 1) How many years of experience do you have with Compasslearning? _____ Years 2) Circle the grade level(s) you currently teach that use Compasslearning K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3) How are the subject areas and performance levels of Compasslearning activities selected for each of your students? 4) How frequently do you use the following Compasslearning Reports?  Whole class - Never - Seldom _Frequently  Individual Student - Never - Seldom _Frequently  Class by Ethnicity - Never - Seldom _Frequently  Class by Gender - Never - Seldom _Frequently  Other - Never - Seldom _Frequently 5.a) If you use Compasslearning reports, what is your primary reason? 5.b) If you do NOT use Compasslearning reports, what is your primary reason? ______ _ 6) What are the strongest aspects of the Compasslearning Program? _________ _ 7) What are the weakest aspects of the Compasslearning Program? __________ _ 8) Do you think your school should continue using Compasslearning? _Yes No Why?--------------------------------- Page 2 TCLQ 74 Little Rock School District (LSRD) Compasslearning Parent Survey Dear Parent/Guardian We would like to know what you think about your child or children using the CompassLearning program (the program your child or children work on in the computer Jab). Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. Only complete 1 (one) survey if you have more than one child in the school district Directions  Circle your response or fill- in the requested information in the space provided.  Do not put your name on the survey.  Share with us your honest opinions to help improve this program. Information about your Child/Children Circle the grade levels of your child/children K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Circle the ethnicity of your child/children Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic Computer Lab Program (Compasslearning) Do you know about the computer lab program at your child 's/children 's school? Yes No If Yes, please answer the remaining questions. If No, please have your child return the survey to his/her teacher. How did you learn about the computer lab activities? School Teacher My kids Other parents/friends Do you think your child/children get excited about using the computer lab? Yes Somewhat No Not sure Do you think computer lab time is an important part of your child 's/children 's education? Yes Somewhat No Not sure Do you think use of the Computer Lab has improved your child 's/children 's interest in school? .. ... .. ...... ..... ....... ..... .... ... Yes Somewhat achievement in reading and math? ... ...... Yes 1 Somewhat No No Not Sure Not Sure Your Comments Please respond in the space provided and use back of sheet if more space is needed. What is the Best thing about your child/children using the Computer Lab program? What is the Worst thing about your child/children using the Computer Lab program? What Changes would you like to see in the Computer Lab program? 75 Little Rock School District (LSRD) Compasslearning Student Focus Group Protocol Nature of the Activities 1. How long have you been using Compasslearning? a. What kinds of activities do you do when using Compasslearning? b. Have you been using it in your classroom or in a lab? 2. What do you think about the amount of time that you spend using Compasslearning? a. Is it enough - or too much? b. Why? 3. What kinds of computer problems have you experienced when using it? 4. What types of changes would you like to see in the Compasslearning program? Usefulness of CompassLearning 5. Do you think Compasslearning helps you to do better in sc\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_126","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2005-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"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/126"],"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\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nArkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4SfATECAPITOLMALL  LITLEROCK,ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501)682-4-475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education November 30, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFFICE OF DESEOREOATIOH MONITORING Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of November 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair - Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle * Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for November 2005. Respectfully Submitted, co mith, General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on November 30, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Based on Uie information available at Octo6er317'2005, the ADE calculated t e filate Foundation FundingJor FY 05/06 subect to Jieriodic adjus~ B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Based on the information ava1la le at October 31 2005 the  DE calculatecl o FY 05/06 sub\"ect to eriodic adjustments C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 On October 31, 2005 distributions of State 'Fo~ndation Funding for FY 05 06 were as fol o s LRSD - $17,500,221 NLRSD - $9,112,935 CSSD- 15,156288 The allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated -for FYOS/06 at October 31, 2005 subject to Reriodic adjy_stments, were as follow~ LR-SD - $-64, 167,477. NLRSD - $33,414,099 PCSSD - $55,573,061, D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at Ocigber 31, 2005 for FY 05/06, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Based on tile information available, the ADE calculated at Octo er 31 2005 o FY 05/06 subjedt to eriodic adustments It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at October 31 2005 for FY 05j06, subject to P.eriodic adj~stments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Distributions for FY 05/06 at October 31, 2005, totalea $3,812, 154. Allotment calculated for FY 05/06 was $13,977,904 subject to eriodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 ist \"butions or E 05/06 at Octobe 31 2005 were RS - $809~636 t-JLRSD - $806,37L CSSD- $2,160 192 TT\"he allotments calculated for FY 05/06 \"a(Q~-31'72005, subject to Qerio adustments, were\n8,17~ NLRSD - $4,031,872' CSSD - 10 800 964 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 In September 2004, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 03/04 to the Districts. In September 2004, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In March 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan . 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 In September 2004, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 03/04 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2004, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $4,019,063.00 NLRSD -$772,940.15 PCSSD - $2,478,863.72 In September 2004, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2004, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $1,325,043.67 NLRSD - $275,333.33 PCSSD - $845,221.22 In March 2005, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At March 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $2,650,087.34 NLRSD - $550,666.66 PCSSD - $1,690,442.44 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued} In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. R. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Final payment was distributed July 1994. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 13 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 {Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cyc_le 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b} the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.} staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 15 IL MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 16 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201- A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearance Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 8. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. ofthis report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION {Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 2 7 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's ProjectManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. . Actual as of November 30, 2005 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT} and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 {Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 3 5 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and ap'proved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of .Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. - On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On Novem ber 14, 2005, the Ark:ansas State Board of Education reviewed and ap prove_g the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 39 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 40 VI. REMEDJA TION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted . 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature compensatory education programs. (Continued) search for research evaluating D. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the. ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's. Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 47 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 {Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program {ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program {ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 52 Vl. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on . improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length} in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued} On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center a\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1760","title":"Court filings regarding Joshua intervenors' corrected proposed findings of fact with respect to show cause hearing and witness summaries, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness summaries and responses to Court orders, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of no objection to order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-11"],"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--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts","Little Rock School District","Project management","Joshua intervenors","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Joshua intervenors' corrected proposed findings of fact with respect to show cause hearing and witness summaries, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness summaries and responses to Court orders, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of no objection to order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"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/1760"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["17 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\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\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' corrected proposed findings of fact with respect to the show cause hearing of Monday, November 7, 2005; District Court, Joshua's witness summaries; District Court, response to Court's October 31, 2005, order - Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness summaries; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of no objection to order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order; District Court, Joshua's response to the court's order of November 8, 2005; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' reply to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to the court's order of November 7, 2005; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to the Joshua intervenors; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW IJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED NOV - 3 2005 DE8EBREajV,b~ 8~NITORJNa PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD's Motion for Excused Absence (Doc. No. 3961) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2005. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_ support@ared.uscourts.gov - o:ared ecf@ared . uscourts.gov 91essage-Id:\u0026lt;5l2094@ared . uscourts . gov\u0026gt; Bee: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School , et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Order\" Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U .S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 11/1/2005 at 10:47 AM CST and filed on 11/1/2005 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http : //ecf . ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3962 Copy the URL address from the line below into the l ocation bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared . uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?3962,26052,,MAGIC,,,2005244 Docket Text: ORDER re (3961] granting Request filed by Pulaski County Special School District for an excused absence . Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 11/1/05. (dac ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction : Document description: Main Document ~ riginal filename: n/a ~ lectronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=ll /1/200 5] [FileNumber=512093-0] [5el74b586773ed0230654b2ff6782410ddaf90592349b8d34ebe9e8fb838193bb8219d5e7deb637 37eb5a09d3233276cfeb29684853d6c3748clfdl47bc9d63b]] 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com, John Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, belecia .bledsoe@arkansasag . gov Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec . net; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw .net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net , scstreett@yahoo . com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmail.com _ :82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to : Clayton R . Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock , AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. a,9 Hudson Street 9:uite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P . A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 William P . Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 .,I - ,,. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED NOV 7 2005 Off\\CE Of DESEGREGAl\\OM MOMtlORlMG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' CORRECTED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOW CAUSE HEARING OF MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2005 The Court's Order of June 30, 2004 was explicit and understood by the parties. This is reflected by the fact that no party sought clarification or other action thereon. The LRSD officials appear to oppose the remedy set forth by the Court. It is reflected in their inactions and overt actions as well as set forth below. 1. LRSD's evaluation plan is based in large part upon student achievement data being assembled by the ADE in connection with the \"No Child Left Behind\" requirements which the Arkansas Department of Education is charged with overseeing. 2. In previous years, the ADE distributed student achievement data in one phase. Those data were normally made available to LRSD and similar districts by July 1 of each year. 3. The LRSD assembled an essentially new staff for the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (PRE) between September 2004 and November 2004. 4. The LRSD failed to understand the ADE's timing for the release of student achievement data to LRSD regarding the 2004-2005 results. 5. The ADE changed the process during the summer of 2004 in order to address additional grade levels, to establish new \"cut-off' scores for determining \"proficiency,\" and for other ADE purposes. 6. Between July 1, 2004 and December 1, 2004, ADE officials created committees to address new testing issues contemplated by the \"No Child Left Behind\" Act. 7. As of September 23, 2004, three months after the Court's June 30, 2004 Order, the District had not hired Dr. Steve Ross. See notes of Gene Jones, p. 2. Indeed, Dennis Glasgow, Acting Associate Superintendent, reported that sentiment was against using him because he was not an advocate for the LRSD. See G.J. Memo, p. 1. 8. On December 9, 2004 the ADE distributed a video document to LRSD school officials which notified the PRE that test data distribution from ADE would be delivered in two rather than one phase as had been done in the past. The second \"phase\" was to be distributed in the \"fall\" of 2005. The ADE was explicit in notifying the LRSD that Phase I data would not be sufficient to allow a determination of appropriate student placement on the benchmark examinations. Phase II data, due in the fall, would allow placement of students into one of four rating categories. A copy of the video is being delivered to the Court by the ADE. 9. LRSD should therefore have known in December 2004 that additional time was . necessary in order for it to comply with the time requirements of the Court's June 30, 2004 Order. 10. That the LRSD knew in December 2004 that additional time was necessary to meet the Court's October 1, 2005 deadline for filing the step 2 evaluations is reflected in the response - for documents to Mr. Phil Kaplan dated October 31, 2005. Therein, Mr. Gene Jones reflects that on December 16, 2004, ODM met with PRE staff and explained that the \"states benchmark tests will not be available in electronic format until September of each year. The group thought they should consult with the outside consultants before deciding how to proceed.\" 11. In February 2005, Mr. Heller wrote Mr. Walker to explain that he intended \"to ask the Court to extend the deadline for filing evaluations.\" See Ex. A, hereto. Heller attached letters from Dr. Stephen Ross and Mr. James Wohlleb at the time. Dr. Ross referenced past time experiences with ADE. Mr. Wohlleb expected the ADE data by mid-July. 12. The Wohlleb and Ross letters reflect that neither they nor PRE had an understanding that the ADE would be providing the data in two phases; and that the necessary electronic data needed for the step two evaluations would not be available until the fall (October) 2005. 13. Ross was not hired until February 1, 2005. Accordingly, he had no contact with the ADE before that and would not have knowledge about the actual dates that he could expect the electronic data necessary for his work. 14. On March 15, 2005, Mr. Heller informed ODM that LRSD would not be requesting an extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for the reason that LRSD expected to have the data by July 1, 2005. IfLRSD didn't get the data by July 1, then Mr. Heller indicated he would then ask for an extension of time from the Court. 15. Mr. Heller has indicated that he spoke with Joshua Counsel Walker in June or July, 2005 and that Mr. Walker announced opposition to delay. Response to the Court dated October 4, 2005. Mr. Heller took no further action regarding the matter. Opposition by counsel is not a sufficient basis to excuse the District's failure to promptly act. 16. Between March 2005 and September 29, 2005, the District reduced the PRE staff by - three people, all of whom had been previously reported to the Court as \"highly trained professional\" staff members. They have not been replaced. This is a further indication of the seriousness with which the LRSD addressed the Court Order. 17. Between June 30, 2004 and November 3, 2005, the only contact between Dr. Gail Potter, ADE Associate Director for Curriculum and Research and Dr. DeJarnette involved whether a non certified staff member could hold the position of testing coordinator. That occurred a few weeks ago. Neither Dr. DeJarnette, nor Mr. Heller, made any inquiry of whether the required data could be produced within the time frame approved by the Court. D.r. Potter indicated that it could have been produced although there were some costs associated with earlier production. 18. Dr. Potter further indicated that the LRSD had not met with her or her office staff regarding LRSD's compliance with the Court's June 30, 2004 Order. 19. According to Dr. Potter, the 2003 Legislature required the two phase process for production of Benchmark data. Mr. Heller, therefore, should have known in the fall of 2004 and the spring of2005 that the two phase process would change the time equation set forth by the Court. 20. The reasons proffered by the LRSD establish that they knew, and knew that they should have known, that the deadline of October 1, 2005 for plan compliance could not be met and they deliberately refused to promptly so inform the Court and seek delay. 21. The excuse for failure to seek early Court approval for compliance with its October 1, 2005 deadline is that the district's counsel was busy with another important case. The Court notes that the district counsel are several; that the District is represented by the States's largest law firm, and that other counsel are assigned to work on this case; and that when called upon to reply to the Show Cause Order herein, the District and its lead counsel took it seriously and. promptly complied. They hired not only outside counsel for Mr. Heller but for the District as well. That counsel filed the pleading for the District. The District could equally seriously have addressed the June 30, 2004 Order. Its refusal to do so is contemptuous. The action required was simple; the District's refusal to promptly request an extension oftime was wilful. Respectfully submitted, ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Facsimile) Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of November, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which shall send electronic notifications to all counsel associated with this case and by other means to counsel listed below. Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC IO IO West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ls/John W. Walker ..,,:;ui. vv1J..J..1Lvvv a.\"t. ii:vo:'i.J. - zrom to Pl/~ FRIDAY FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CL\\RK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 www.fridayfirm.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The infonnation in this facsimile transmittal is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original transmittal to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank you. Fax To: Fax No: GeneJones 371Q100 Subject: JOSHUA'S WITNESS.SUMN!ARIES. Message: Date: 03 November 2005 5A 11 :08 Pages\"Sent: 5 . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW..JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLEROCKSCHOOLDISTRICT v. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAJNTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS THE JOSIIlJA INTERVENORS' REPLY TO THE DIRECTIVE OF THE COURT DA TED OCTOBER 31, 2005 The Court seeks as explanation for LRSD' s failure to promptly inform the Court that it needed an extension of time in which to meet the October 1, 2005requirements of the Court's June 30, 2004 Order. The burden is on the District to explain wh.y delay was not promptly sought. The active parties have submitted extensive lists of witnesses through whom the Court's limited concern would be addressed on November 7, 2005. Joshua acknowledges its initial witness list to have had a broader agenda than the issue to be addressed at the hearing. Accordingly Joshua reduces its witness list to the persons called by the defendants and to the following other persons with a summary of their anticipated testimony if they are not called by the LRSD: 1) Dr. Roy Brooks: his involvement in the process was minimal, not an agenda item for him or .the Board and he did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did impress upon him the significance or importance of the Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 2 of 4 time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1, 2004 and October 6, 2005 on other matters. 20 minutes 2) Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh: his involvement in the process was also minimal; not an agenda item for him or the Board and he, too, did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did not impress upon him the significance or importance of the time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1, 2004 and October 6, 2005 on other matters. 15 minutes 3) Dr. Olivine Roberts: (a) the interaction between herself, Dr. DeJarnette, the Joshua Intervenors, the State Department of Education, the PRE staff, the expert witnesses, Ors. Brooks and Hattabaugh and Mr. Chris Heller; (b) her minimal involvement in  the process; and, (c) her failw:e to ever meet and discuss any evaluation issue including the need for additional time.for compliance with Joshua.. the ODM or the State Department of Education. 45 minutes 4) Joy Springer: (a) will address Mr. Heller's contentions in his reply dated October 4, 2005. She will establish that Mr. Heller informed Joshua in February 2005 that the Benchmark results would not likely be prepared prior to September 2005; (b) that JWhen Mr. Heller appeared before the Eighth Circuit on April 12, 2005, he presented Dr. DeJamette and Dr. Brooks as he indicated that the district was complying with this Court's Order while appealing; ( c) Joshua's efforts to be involved in the process; (d) that LRSD and Mr. Heller knew long before September 29, 2005 that LRSD would not likely be able to meet the deadline; and (f) LRSD did nothing to advance receipt of the data from the processing sources. 30 minutes 2. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 3 of 4 5) Mr. Dennis Glasgow: he will address his efforts to prevent Dr. Steve Ross' further participation in the evaluation process, and his efforts to delay compliance activities. 30 minutes 6) Mr. Gene Jones: will addtess the knowledge of ODM regarding the process, the advice givei;i by ODM regarding extending the Court ordered time, and the response ofthe LRSD to that advice. 30 minutes Respectfully submitted. ls/John W. Walker: John W. Walker~ AR Bar.No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock. AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Facsimile) Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 uou; v~, ,.J.i.1 ~vv;.; \u0026lt;:1.. c. .1..i. : .i.v: vo - .i:rom - to Pb/ 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11J0212005 Page 4 of4 CERTIFICATE Q)f SERYJCE I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of November, 2005, l electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which shall send electronic notifications to all counsel associated with this case and by other.means to counsel listed below. Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner; Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock. AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Cbachkin NA.'\\CP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, .Inc. 99 Hudson Street L Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger- Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center. Street Suite200 -Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn. Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn. P:A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ls/John w. Walker 4- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RESPONSE TO COURT'S OCTOBER 31. 2005 ORDER - LRSD'S WITNESS SUMMARIES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS In response to the Court's Order of October 31, 2005, LRSD submits the following summaries of the expected testimony of its witnesses. LRSD estimates that the direct examination of each witness will take thiliy minutes. LRSD does not expect to can Dr. Brooks a,; a witness, as the PRE witnesses who report to Dr. Brooks can provide the same information he would provide. l. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring l Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Jones is expected to testify that he had primary responsibility within the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor LRSD's implementation of the Court's June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy; that LRSD' s Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) was cooperative and helpful; that he had access to all relevant document,; and notice of all relevant meetings with the possible exception of a recent visit by Dr. Catterall which took place on October - 17, 2005; that LRSD hired qualified experts to perform the required Step 2 program evaluations; that OC:11~ V.)/.1..1./.GVVO a\"'t .1.1:01:.L::\u0026gt; - .from to p3/ 11 PRE worked diligently to support those experts in their work; that LRSD also hired experts to perform additional program evaluations not required by the Court's compliance remedy; that he provided regular reports to the Court concerning the status of LRSD' s compliance; that PRE, as far a.c; he knows, provided Joshua access to relevant documents and notice of relevant meetings concerning the Step 2 evaluations with the possible exception of a recent visit by. Dr. Catterall which took place on October 17, 2005; that LRSD changed the subject of one proposed Step 2 evaluation at the request of the Joshua intervenors; that the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 require data from the Arkansac; benchmark exams for their completion; that such data was not available in a form useful to LR.SD' s experts before October 1; that the reporting of Arkansas benchmarkresults is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education; that there is nothing LRSD could have done to ha,;ten the reporting of benchmark exam results; that in late 2004 and early 2005 LRSD considered seeking and extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for four Step 2 evaluations; and that by March, 2005 LRSD had decided to wait to see if the State supplied the test scores from the Spring 2005 testing in time for the District to meet the deadline; that LRSD notified him of that decision and that he notified the Court. 2. Dr. Karen DeJarnette Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 3\u0026lt;Yh \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets LiUle Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Karen DeJarnette is expected to testify that she is director of PRE and has been since September 17, 2004; that implementing the compliance remedy has been PRE' s top priority during  the time she hac; been it,; director; that she and her staff at PRE have worked diligently to implement the compliance remedy; that LR.SD hired Dr. James S. Catterall, a qualified expert, to evaluate it,; 2 uou\u0026lt;. v~1.1.11 ..cuuo at: .1.L: o,: 4;j - trom - to p4/ ll \"I Year-Round Education (YRE) program; that LRSD hired Dr. Steve Ross. a qualified expert, to perform the Step 2 evaluations of SMART/fHRIVE, Compa'is Learning, and Reading Recovery; that Drs. Catterall and Ross were provided copies of the compliance remedy and that they each signed a Memorandum of -Understanding on February 1, 2005 agreeing to conduct the Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the compliance remedy; that they were actively involved in the design and planning of Step 2 evaluations beginning in 2004; that PRE worked cooperatively with ODM and Joshua, providing them access to documents and notice of meetings so that they would be constantly aware of LRSD' s progress in meeting the requirements of the compliance remedy; that, beginning in December 2004 through March 2005, LRSD considered the question of whether to seek an extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for submission of the Step 2 evaluations so that PRE and the LRSD Board of Directors would have more time to review the evaluations prior to their submission to the Court; that those discussions were predicated on the belief that benchmark exam resultc; would be available in July 2005; that during February or March, 2005, LRSD raised the question of additional time with the Joshua Intervenors and was told that Joshua would oppose any such request; that LRSD decided in March 2005 not to make a request for an extension of time and notified ODM of that decision; that the LRSD Superintendent and Board of Directors expected PRE to meet the requirement,; of the Compliance Remedy; that the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 required data from the Spring 2005 administration of the Arkansac; benchmark examinations; that in order to be useful to Ors. Catterall and Ross, that data must be in digital form; that the benchmark examination results were not available in digital form before October 1, 2005 although PRE had a good faith belief that they would be available in July 2005; that the reporting of Arkansa,; benchmark examination result'i is entirely within the control of the Arkansa'i 3 ot:;ui, v~1.1J.1:.cvvo a-c .1.1:::\u0026gt;tj : .L4 - rom - to p5/ll Department of Education; that there was nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the reporting of the necessary benchmark examination results; and that no one in PRE or anywhere within LRSD did anything for the purpose of avoiding or delaying compliance with the Compliance Remedy; that the requested extension of time wa,; made in good faith bac;ed on a belief that it is necessary to secure high quality evaluations in accordance with the Compliance Remedy; and that the delay will not reduce the usefulness of the evaluations to LRS_D - they will be used to make any indicated program changes for the 2006-07 school year, just as they would have been used had they been received on October 1, 2005. 3. Dr. James S. Catterall Professor University of California P. 0. Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Dr. Catterall is expected to testify in accordance with his Affidavit which was previously filed in this case. Dr. Catterall will be available by telephone on November 7, 2005 at 310--455- 2720. 4. Dr. Steven M. Ross Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Dr. Ross is expected to testify that he was hired to perform three Step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year in accordance with the Court's June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy; that he has been hired to conduct three Step 2 evaluations for the 2005-06 school year in accordance with the 4 Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58 :36 - from - to pS/11 Court's June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy; that PRE has been cooperative and responsive in supporting his work and providing him any requested assistance; that 2004-05 final benchmark examination results (not raw data) in a usable digital format are necessary for him to complete the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005; that such information is not yet available; and that LRSD has done nothing to hinder or delay his efforts to perform Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the requirements of the June 30, 2004 Order. He will further testify that all of the field work necessary to accomplish the evaluations wa.,; completed in a timely manner and that he was waiting for the benchmark examinations so that the work of integrating these tests scores could complete the evaluations; that it was only the receipt of the exam results which prevented him from completing his a.-;signment. 5. Jim Wohlleb Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 3Qlh \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Jim Wohlleb is expected to testify that he began work for LRSD on October 1, 2004-as a statistical research specialist within the PRE Department. Beyond that, his testimony is expected to be substantially the same a,; that of Dr. Karen DeJarnette. 6. Dr. Gayle Potter Associate Director Academic Standards and Assessment Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 106A Little Rock, AR 7220 I 5 Dr. Gayle Potter is expected to testify that she is Associate Director for Academic Standards and Assessment at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE); that she is the person within ADE primarily responsible for testing in general and the Arkansac; benchmark examinations in particular; that the benchmark examination results for the 2004-05 school year were originally expected to be releac;ed in July 2005; that on June 23, 2005 ADE issued an informational memo to Arkansas Superintendents notifying them that committees were \"working to reset the cut scores for each performance level of the Benchmark Exams\" and consequently the examination results would be issued in two phac;es; that Phac;e I would consist of cd' s containing raw score reportc; which would be shipped to districtc; no later than July 1, 2005; that \"assumptions about whether a student is proficient cannot be made based on raw scores\"; and that \"Phase II Reports placing students into new performance levels will be issued in the fall of 2005\"; that the digital benchmark data necessary for statistical analysis will be releac;ed in mid-November; that releac;e of the benchmark examination results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education and iL'i contractors; that LRSD has done nothing to delay the relea'ie of the results; and that there is nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the release of the digital data required by its experts to complete their Step 2 evaluations. 7. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller will testify that he filed a Motion to Extend Time on September 29, 2005 - ba'ied on a good faith belief, after rea'ionable inquiry, that the matters presented in that Motion were 6 ben~ 03/11/2005 at 11 : 59:25 - from - to p8/ll true; that he filed a response to the Court's September 30, 2005 Order on October 4, 2005 based on a good faith belief, after reasonable inquiry, that the matters presented in that response were true; that, having now had the oppo\\tunity to review hundreds of emails and other documents, he believes that the conversation with counsel for Joshua described at page 2 of \"LRSD's Response to Order\" probably occurred in February or March rather than June or July. The principal reamn for not filing LRSD' s Motion to Extend Time sooner than September 29, 2005 was counsel's intense involvement on behalf of LRSD in Lake View v. Huckabee; that matter was scheduled as follows: May 5, 2005 Arkansas Supreme Court issues Per Curiam Order scheduling oral argument on May 19, 2005; May 19, 2005 Oral Argument; June 9, 2005 Mandate recalled and Masters reappointed; July 8, 2005 Disclosure of witnesses and exhibits; June 28, 2005 Case conference with Masters; July 19, 2005 MUltiple daily depositions begin and continued for several weeks; July 26, 2005 Date of hearing as originally scheduled is rescheduled to begin on August 29, 2005 because parties cannot complete preparations; August 29 through September 9, 2005 Hearings; September 20, 2005 Post Hearing Briefs due. Counsel and PRE had anticipated that electronic data from the State of Arkansas would be available 7 bent 0~11112005 at 11:59:47 - from - to p9/11 in July and that the October 1, 2005 deadline could, therefore, be met. Counsel did receive an e-mail from Dr. DeJarnette on June 30, 2005 setting forth that the state benchmark scores could not be available in July. Counsel did not respond or react to that e-mail in a timely fa'ihion because of his involvement in the Lake View cac;e. Counsel did not recognize until September 2005 that the critical information would not be available, and it was then that the Motion to Extend Time was filed. Counsel will testify that it was an inadvertent but important omission on his part for which he accepts responsibility. Respectfully Submitted, Philip E. Kaplan (68026) :({aplan, Brewer, Maxey \u0026amp; Haralson P.A. 415 Main Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 372-0400 Pkaplan (q) kbmlaw. net Isl Philip E. Kaplan 8 .:::\u0026gt;t::Ul:. V;j/l.l./,UU::\u0026gt; at lZ:OO:OZ - from - to pl0/11 CERTWICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 3, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the foJJowing: mark..hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Philip E. Kaplan 9 ~eni u~111,~uuo at 11:56:33 - from to pl/ 11 FRIDAY FRIDA\\ ELDREUGE \u0026amp; CL\\RK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY P ARTNERSIIlP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-349-J www.fridayflnn.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The infonnation in this facsimile transmittal is legally privileged and confidential information intended onlv for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, dis1nbution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original transmittal to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank you. Fax To: Fax No: GeneJones 3710100 Subject: Attached Response to October 31, 2005 Order Message: Date: 03 November 2005 5A 11 :55 Pages Sent: 11 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-1 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITI'LE ROCK DMSION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MR.C'') for approval - of the interdistrict magnet schools' final figures for the 2004-2005 school year and proposed budget for the 2005-2006 school year. The MR.C communicated the budget to the Court in a letter dated September 22, 2005 (attached). I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five days; otherwise, the :MR.C's final budget for the 2004-2005 school year and proposed 2005-2006 budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of November, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE , ,,. . \"' Case 4:82-cv-,Q0~66-WRVV.~TR ~ocumeJJt 3972-2 Filed 11/08/?005 Page 1 of 16 1V1agnet Kevzew Committee 1 ~ North M!1fn Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758--5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {EMmail} September 22, 2005 The Honorable William R Wilson, Jr. Judge, u. s. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rook, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: Rece,veo w SEP 2 8. 2005 U n,S. R! Wllson .6. .. o. Drstrtct J , Jr. Of Ar'\"-anUsadsg e On September 20, 2005, Mark Milholleo, CbiefFimmci.al Officer, Little Rock School District, provided the Magnet Review Cnnmrittee with the final figures for the 2004-05 budget, as well as the proposed budget for the 2005-06 school year. The information is contained in the attachment (Draft 1) and was furwarded to MRC members prior to their vote on Tuesday, September 20, 2005. The Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and vote of S--0, with the Joshua Intervenors representative absent, approved the final budget for the 2004-05 school year, as well as the proposed budget for 2005--06. Listed below is a recap of the budget information which is now being presented to the Cotnt for approval: 1. FINAL 2004-2005 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $27,964.934.00, is based on a per-pupil expenditme of $7,237.00, ca1culated from the three quarter average enrollment of 3,864.00 students. Actual attendance records of3,862.90 students set the final budget figure at $27,948,760.00, and the final budget's per pupil expenditure at $7,235.00, or $2.00 less per pupil than originally budgeted. Thii final 2004-05 document reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (salary, teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in July, 2004. Included in the Summary portion of the budget information are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State during this time period. \"Pursue thePossihilities of Magnet Scht\u0026gt;ofEnrollment~ ~ ~ I Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-ilTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 2 of 16 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. -2- September 22, 2005 2. PROPOSED 2005-2006 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS B~T The total proposed budget for the 2005--06 school year is $28,849,578.00, based on a proposed Average Daily Membership of3,862.90, which results in a perpupil expenditure of $7,468.00 and an increase of $233.00 over the 2004-05 actual rate. This proposed budget has taken into account increased salaries, fiinge ben~ insurance and teacher retirement. Included in the Summary portion of Draft 1 are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of both the 2004-2005 flnaliud budget in the amount of$27,948,760.00, with a per pupil expenditure of$7,23S.OO, as well as the proposed 2005-2006 budget, attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed~ mahttauring the quality of the Stq)ulation magnet !!Chools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of~ magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent .poS811\u0026gt;1e. , Sincerely, ~~~ Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments: Actual 2004-2005 Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) Pt-Qposed 2005-2006 Stipulation Magttet Schools Budget (Draft 1) cc: Office of Desegregation Monitoring . J, .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 . . 6.0 $574,294 $574,594 $577,006 02 10.0 $700,207 $700.207 10.0 $704187 03 S allsts 40.0 $1,968 829 $1,994125 40.0 $2,060,208 04 Counselors 13.4 $750109 $711,567 13.4 $745,756 05 MedlaS 6.5 $351986 $335,378 6.5 $333386 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $132,463 $132409 3.0 $135929 07 Mu 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 7.6 $427,864 $433,041 7.6 $442,679 10 ucatfon 9.6 $457,289 $506 10.0 $621519 11 Glfled 5.4 $294,408 $291 ,443 5.4 $296,023 12 Classroom 194.3 $9,737,515 $10 114 194.3 $9,892,360 13 Substitutes 0.0 $268,000 $257,280 0.0 $293,000 14 Other-Kind arten 16.0 $761,295 $776 058 16.0 $729,204 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 311.7 $16,424.258 $16,827 3122 $16 831.258 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 20.4 $608558 $602,689 20.4 $621 784 STAFF 16 Nurses 6.0 $277,088 $263,501 6.0 $273,520 17 CUstodlans 30.0 $598 78 $572,068 30.0 $572,556 18 nServlces 1.0 494 $52,231 1.0 $65 19 rofesslonals-Other 6.0 $211167 $213,521 6.0 $176869 20 Other--Aldes 23.8 $513183 $598,784 23.8 $490 064 21 F $5446,402 $6,029,813 .  $0 TOTAL SUPP 872 $7720170 $7332608 $7744958 TOT $24,144,426 $24159815  $24,576 18 PURCHASED 22 Utilities 590300 620,218 : 589,700 SERVICES 23 Travel 42800 42,698 , . 40,000 (30} 24 Maintenance reements $0 $0 $0 - 25 Other 267,352 251,864 285368 TOTAL 30 900 452 914,780 915,068 MATERIAI..S, 26 sOfl!ce $0 $39 $40 SUPPLIES 27 lassroom 588,910 582,488 811,870 (40) 28 46795 31 586 45,470 29 Other 23,300 27685 , ..~,: 24,273 TOTAL 40 659,005 641,798 881 ,653 CAPITAL 30 211,819 105 033 70315 OUTLAY 31 $0 $0 $0 50 32 Other $0 $488 $0 TOTAL 50 211,819 105,521 70,315 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 11 541 6,986 7,800 60 34 Other $0 $0 $0 TO 11,541 6,986 7,800 TOT 1782 817 1,669 085 1,874,836 TOT 25 927.243 25,828,900 26,451 052 TOT AL LINE ITEM ECO 2,037,691 2,119,860 :---- ,: $ 2,398,526 :__ \"if'. - till ~ t:in~~'st~f MAGBK06.xls.  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 4 of 16 .i,  ~ ;~-;~:~i,:l;jji w~9 ~ni '~Mt=;~~=M,iJWff 2 :~~~ 6 Jtc Stioends $35 557 $43 227 $29 600 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1 849,008 $1,935 360 $2.194.000 Vocational $32 800 $16,764 $32 800 Athletlcs $81 826 $86.423 $101 626 Gifted Proarams $500 $498 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $31.667 $32,000 Reading $500 $500 $500 ~~ $0 $0 w English $1.500 $1,431 $1 500 Soeclal Education $4,000 $3.990 $4 000 Curriculum $2 000 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $2.037,691 $2,119 860 $2,398 526 State of Arkansas $13,982467 $13,974041 LRSD $8,842,512 $8,958802 PCSSD $3,352998 $3336,095 NLRSD $1 786,959 $1,679 822 $1,733 20 Total Costs $27964934 $27948,760 $28,849 578 MAGBK06:xls, ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 5 of 16 . -:~ -::-:-:-:-::-:-:-:-:-:-; . . .: ...... ?~=:~::::::::~~::: if :: : - . 75 1.0 94,975 STAFF 02 Assl Ptin. 1.0 $ 70,337 70,337 1.0 $ 70,337 03 Specialists 7.0 $ 363,816 370,483 7.0 $ 364,972 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 116,229 87,048 2.0 $ 95,364 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 42,588 33,724 1.0 $ 43,n3 06 Art-PerfJProd. 3.0 $ 132,463 132,409 3.0 $ 135,929 07 Muslc 0.0 $0 0.0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 o.o 10 s I Education 2.0 $ 121,944 $ 121,944 2.0 $ 121,944 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 54,561 $ 54,561 1.0 $ 54,561 12 Classroom 30.6 $ 1,513,308 $ 1,630,112 30.6 $ 1,587,319 13 Substitutes o.o $ 45,000 $ 43,200 0.0 $ 45,000 14 Other-Kin arten 6.0 $ 238,380 $ 275,604 6.0 $ 222,523 TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 54.6 $2 793601 $2914396 54.6 $2836,697 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $ 48,344 42,964 2.0 $ 54,128 STAFF 16 Nurses 1 46,709 49476 1.0 $ 49476 17 Custodians 81 000 n;i:31 4.0 $ 82029 18 Information Services 10,918 8,707 0.2 $ 10,928 19 Para rofesslonals-other $0 0.0 20 Other-Aides 121.n3 $ 106,757 6.0 $ 112,330 21 F e Benefits 20 910,605 $ 828,983 .-.. - ..- $ 922,519 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY $1,225349 $1,114,104 13.2 $1,231 411 TOTAL {10-20) $4,018,950 $4,028,500 ~ . $4,068,108 PURC~ED 22 Utllltles 73,000 $ 68,886 -:-:.;::-~:;.::::::-:;~:-'-,:~-: $' 73,000 - SERVICES 23 Travel 5,000 $ 3,243 ...... ..... ; $ 5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $0 :~.::::::;:;;::;::::~;::;::::;:;::;~-: ..,.,,, , ... , ... ,,,' 25 Other 31,440 ,..:~.,,..-..,.: '' \u0026lt; $ 30650 TOTAL 30 $109,440 $106,650 MATERIALS, 26 Prln rs Office $0 .. SUPPLIES 27 R ular Classroom 90381 $ 104,328 $ 97,448 (40} 28 Media 9,500 $ 9,354 $ 11,000 29 Other 3,100 $ 3,989 $ 3,812 TOTAL 40 $102981 $117,671 ,:......, .... $112,260 CAPITAL 30 12.000 $ 4336 ,:,-~.y. -- $ 7000 ., ' OUTLAY 31 fr etc. $0 50 32 Other $0 TOTAL 50 $12000 $7,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 2,500 1 000 60 34 Other $0 TOT $2,500 $1 $1 000 TOTAL $226,921 $228,910 TOTAL $4.245,871 .8 $4 7,018 TOTAL LINE ITEM $308 060 0 '' $353,589 : ,  *-\"Atd\u0026amp;N%% .f. .. ::: 'f ~ :m wm .: B!6USN Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 6 of 16     . Aihletic,s $0 $0- $0 ' ' GJfted  , $1'63 $1~ RantServtcee $$,~ $6,060 . . .. $237 : . $229 . ~7 --- -  -- ..- ------ -  -  - - UQat!Qn:=- -=--=- ::-..:....=.: :....c...;._ .. - ~  ..=;.:_ :_:_~ - - : ' ---~-  - - . . . .. . . : ___ =._  .-. :   .... ~- --  -...=..:...-'.:...--- -~---. ---~~~-~::::.... '  - Tota!J.lne Items. t   Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 7 of 16 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED .SERVICES (30) 05 Med!aS 06 Art-PerfJProd. 12 Classroom 2 13 Substitutes 14 other-Kinde arten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 15 Secretaries 16 Nurses 11 custodians 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 19 Para rofesslonals-Other 0.0 20 Other-Aides 4.4 $ 21 Fringe Beneflts{20) .~ i $ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 12.6 TOTAL 10-20 ... ,. ....... . 22 Utflltles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other  TOTAL 30 MATERIALS, 26 ars Offu:e SUPPLIES t-2--7'-+===r;..;;C.,.:tass=roo\"'--m---- (40) 28 Media CAPITAL OUTlAY 50 29 Other 30 32 Other TOTAL 40 TOTAL 50 OTHER 60 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL LINE ITEM SECOND PA :,,.,,  ,,, . '.:'i $0 $0 $0 47,284 n.2sa 928 538 38,000 265,011 $2122,798 88,824 38127 76,000 10,918 $ $0 86,934 $ 716,338 $ $1,017,141 $3139, $0 10,000 $ 1,541 $ $0 1,541 $ $179 751 $3 319,690 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48,843 1.0 $ 74,295 1.4 1 022,752 21 .3 $ 36,480 0.0 $ 243055 5.0 $ $2,185 709 42.2 80,359 3.0 $ 40116 1.0 $ 70,190 4.0 $ 8,707 0.2 $ 0.0 154,392 4.4 $ 719,525 .... , . $ $1,073,289 $3,258998 53 791 12.6 89,431 ::: :-- 5,337 3903 : 98671 3,268 51,587 nno 937,752 38000 246,487 $2,088,601 82,152 41,328 75503 10,928 97,165 708,611 30 013 --- 95,513 nsoo 7,500 3125 88,125 8,500 8500 1,000 1,000 $193138 $3 297,427 $293,462 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 8 of 16 . e ... Athle.tlcs ..: .:- ::. - - . - xxxxxx - . -    - Totaf Une Items -  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 9 of 16 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICJ:S (30} MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTIAY 50 OTHER 60 04 Counselors 1 05 Medias 06 Art-PerfJProd. 12 Classroom 16 13 SUbstltutes 14 Other-Kind arten TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 31 15 Secretar!es 1 16 Nurses 1 17 Custodians 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 20 Other-Aides 3.2 $ 21 Frln e Beneffts(20) ~ : $ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 8.7 TOTAL 10-20 22 Utilltles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other 29 Other TOTAL 40 30 TOTAL 50 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LINE ITEMS - SECOND PA 10,918 $ $0 77,786 $ 528,767 $ $765,423 327983 33800 S 3000 $ $0 29140 $65,940 $0 50784 1,795 2,000 54,579 136,519 $0 $0 136,519 500 $0 500 $ $257536 $2,585521 93,472 $0 247,541 51.456 1 61 ,583 1 70,775 54561 817 347 26880 104,205 $1527,820 38,153 28357 64,868 8,707 $741,165 $2,268 986 : 29,733 13,451 1 68,322 54,561 728,828 28,000 105,715 $1,523,399 30736 34548 67,314 10,928 60,630 510,816 27900 $68,900 35800 2,500 1,953 40,253 16904 16,904 1,000 1,000 $127,057 $2 365,429 $179,105 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 . . Filed 11/08/2005 Page 10 of 16' .. : . ./\" '!:dl.acatlolil - . -_ff . . - . . , . . . .. . ... . ~:;;::::~::::_; ::_: ::;.::::_ ~ _ _ .:, ...- _- _ - _ --_i f_---,:,:-_-=-_--._ ...~ . ,~~=,-:=,c;:;,,.,:~----=~=\"1.:-::-- . .  . - - - -- -.  ... .__ . ---- - . - . .. . . . XXXXX)( _, . ---- - . -- -- ----: . __ ~- --- --- - - -- -- -------~-' l00000t   . .. - ' -~:. Total Une Items -_: _ $151.496 . . - $157918 $119105 - - - - ' .:. 'Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 11 of 16 70337 283,755 ors 1 75572 1 05 Media 1 54,443 54,388 1 06 M-\"Perf.JProd. 0.0 $0 .o 07 Music 0.0 $0 o.o 08 Fo 0.0 $0 o.o 09 0.0 $0 0.0 10 ducatlon 1.5 $ 54,633 $ 51091 1 75,776 11 2.0 $ 108 026 $ 108026 109,181 12 Classroom 21.0 $ 1010,387 $ 1009 996 21 1,015,873 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 30,000 $ 28,800 54,000 14 other-Klnd arten 3.0 $ 153,344 153195 154499 TOTA!. CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1934 678 $1,928 736 $1,987.218 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 77,568 $ 80878 86,520 STAFF 16 Nurses 1. 60086 $ 58864 1 58,864 17 Custodians 3. 68,278 $ 62,801 75,355 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 10,918 $ 8,707 10,928 19 Para[\u0026gt;tofesslonals-Other 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 4.8 $ 55,023 $' 60,1 59,654 21 F e Beneffts(20} ~ $: 650,230 $ 544,76 660,432 TOTA!. SUPPORT SALARY 12.5 $922,100 $951,752 TOTAL 1Q..20 $2856m $2,938970 PURCHASED 22 Ut!lltles 60,000 60000 - SERVICES 23 Travel 3000 2000 (30) 24 Maintenance reements $0 25 Other 24527 $ 28,205 OTAL 30 87527 $ 90,205 MATERIALS, 26 Office $0 SUPPLIES 27 room 73500 62,520 82,600 (40) 28 7,100 16 4 700 29 3,200 3,084 2,904 83800 65620  90,204 CAPITAL 30 4,300 33,234 ;' :  .. 6,911 OUTI.AY 31 Ir, etc. $0 50 32 Other $0 TOTA!. 50  4,300 6,911 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 1 500 1500 60 34 Other $0 TO 1,500 2,5 1,500 TOT $177,127 $178, $188,820 $3,033,904 $2,922,99 $3127,790 TOT AL LINE ITEM ~ $233,789 $237,34 ;:, B.'1:~' : 111.or :. Qt . ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 12 of 16 ' 2005--06 $2150 $0 $260055 $0 Athletf $0 $122 Plant $3793 $59 $0 178 !al Education 237 xxxxxx XXXXXlC Total Line Items $233,789 $237347 $267068  \u0026gt; I  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 13 of 16 as Medias 08 Art-PerfJProd. 07 09 12 Classroom 13 SUbstltutes 14 Other-Kinde arten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY SUPPORT 15 Secretaries STAFF 16 Nurses PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY 50 OTHER 60 17 Custodians 18 Information Servfces 19 Paraprofesslonals-Other 20 Other-Aides 21 Frfn e Beneffls(20) .  .. TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY TOTAL 10-20 22 Ut!Utles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other TOTAL 30 26 rs Office 27 Classroom 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL 40 30 TOTAL 50 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PA ff:i@JtiS. ...,:. Ut:..Jr' .. 3.0 3.4 3.0 1.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 2.6 2.0 0.0 49.8 0.0 0.0 65.8 5.0 1.0 6.0 0.2 1.0 2.4 $172,922 $61583 $0 $0 $0 152,554 $85872 $0 $2,444329 $64,000 $0 $3401,755 $135,216 $40,000 $110000 $10,918 $25,000 $160107 $133,327 $2553,290 $61440 $3582,022 $140,551 $40 116 $107,978 $8,707 3.4 3.0 1.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 2.6 2.0 0.0 49.8 0.0 0.0 65.8 5.0 1.0 6.0 0.2 1.0 $174,168 $61 ,583 $167,562 $205 870 $2,562,745 $64,000 $3704,589 $144,132 $41 328 $109,965 $10,928 $78,162 $75,288 2.4 $75,615 $1,108,720 $1,057,353 '' :  :,,, $1,183,245 $60735 $259,735 $0 $129 600 $6,000 $6,000 $141,600 $26000 $0 $0 $26000 $3,000 $0 $281,814 $124,494 $5790 $6,960 $137,244 $44,358 $44,358 $630 $3,000 $630 $430 335 $464,047 $5,340,106 $5 476,062 $469 490 $4 70, 103 $15,000 $1000 $1,000 $511,469 $5 781,271 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 14 of 16  , - -- ' ' - - , - Attlleb Gffled ~ Edt,u:atfoll . ~ ' : - Gru~ .. , . -: . .-::...:....:: ,,..:....: )OQ0Q0( .c~-=~ - -  - .. TatalUnel!ems $470103 .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW,JTR. ~ Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 15 of 16 STAFF SUPPORT STAFF 05 MedlaS 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 12 Classroom 13 substitutes 14 other-Kind arten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 15 Secretaries 16 Nurses 17 Custodians 18 Information Services 9.8 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 55.1 0.0 0.0 80.9 6.0 1.0 9.5 0.2 19 Para rofesslonals-Other 5.0 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) 20 Other-Aides 3.0 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 24.7 TOTAL 10-20 22 UtllHles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other TOTAL 30 MATERIALS, ~2;:.;:6;..+:,-Prl.;.;;n'-\"'cl=r;.;:;s..;:Offl=ce~--- - SUPPUES 27 R ular Classroom (40) 28 Media 29 other CAPITAL OUTLAY 50 32 Other TOTAL 50 OTHER 60 33 Dues and Fees 34 other $486,691 $514,050 $226 317 $224 976 $50 499 $50 499 $0 $0 $0 $275310 $60020 $0 $3043,074 $63000 $0 $4608,865 $221,944 $45,878 $198 000 $10,905 $186,167 $87,505 $1,531,743 $2,282,142 $6891 007 $168,000 $24,800 $272,933 $80863 $3080,766 $60,480 $4688,522 $219,785 $46,572 $188 995 $8,697 $213,521 $84,946 $2,157,859 $6 846,381 : : $181,796 : $15 972 :._ 4.0 9.8 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.5 0.0 56.1 0.0 0.0 82.4 8.0 1.0 9.5 0.2 5.0 3.0 $0 $94300 $287,100 $125,483 :-:~ - - - : ' $0 $180,145 $13,400 $5000 $198,545 $23,000 $0 $0 $23000 $2,500 $0 $2,500 $323,251 $39 $146,683 $9930 $6,967 $163 618 $19,837 $19837 $2701 JW% $105,050 $298904 $509,197 $230,123 $50499 $275117 $98,020 $3,059,843 $64,000 $4690 753 $ $10,915 $176,869 $84,670 $307522 $13,400 $6,980 $327942 $16,000 $16,000 $2,300 $511145 $509,406 $625 442 105.6 $7,402,152 $7,355.788 107.1 $7,582,118 62 259 \"'.'.' : . , .,,,::  . 296 Q!P.J.ii ~ 'YWM ,.Ml\\ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Page 16 of 16 ~ . _ , - ', , v .;, .v.  . .,.-. 2004-05 2004-05 2005-08 ,500 $17,655 20750 $0 0 $0 Indirect $539n2 $556,534 $640,484 Vocational $18 513 $9,410 $18,611 Athletics $46,609 67851 $80 774 G rams $0 $0 $0 Plant $9,342 $9,106 $9,342 Read! $146 $144 $146 I $0 $0 $0 $438 $412 I Education $1168 $1147 Curriculum xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $621,488 $662,259 $n2,296 1,110.82 M. SAMUEL JONES, Ill DIRECT DIAL 501 688 881 2 11!: MAIL S.JONll!:S@MWSGW,COM LAW O FF IC ES MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1 800 LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 3525 TELEPHONE 501  6888800 FAX 5016888807 November 10, 2005 Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 600 W. Capitol Ave., Rm. 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. U.S .D.C. No. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR Dear Judge Wilson: RECEIVED NOV 1 4 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONR'ORING !541 4 PINNACLE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 500 ROGE\"R8, ARKAN BA  72758 81 31 TELE~HONII!: 479484 5650 FAX 479484 !5880 I have the Court's Order dated November 8, 2005, respecting the MRC budget. On behalf of the PCS SD let me please state that it has no objection to the proposed budget. MSJ:ao cc: Hon. J. Thomas Ray Counsel of Record Office of Desegregation Monitoring Cordially yours, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. cf ~ones, III i. er Documents \"2-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 U.S. District Court Eastern Districf of Arkansas I \\J\"otice of Electronic Filing / fhe following transaltion was received ;om Jones, M. entered on 11/10/2005 at 4:20 PM :ST and filed on 11/10/2005 ' Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski County Special School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 .cument Number: 3974 Docket Text: IBSPONSE re [3972] Order, by Pulaski County Special School District. (Jones, M.) fhe following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stam-p: :sTAivlP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/10/2005] [FileNumber=520387-0 I [2b05c454b6626b279aaab8d9a110b52b6c7db27b72252a7882ceb0e89371e18c2ea )28d381e846109b4bd340956d9750d5a162780ela98686576276197543ee0]] t:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: \\.1ark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com,  Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, \\1ark Arnold. Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, .ecia.bledsoe@arkansasag.gov :hristopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec.net vi. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com ;tephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com )hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net ;baron Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com rohn W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; springer@gabrielmail.com l:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: ...,layton R. Blackstock ~chell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC l O 10 West Third Street )ost Office Box 1510 ~ittle Rock, AR 72203-1510 -.J\" orman J. Chachkin -.J\"AACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. }9 Hudson Street ;uite 1600 -.J\"ew York, NY 10013 timothy Gerard Gauger \\rkansas Attorney General's Office :atlett-Prien Tower Building ;23 Center Street ;uite 200 jttle Rock, AR 72201-2610 -'ames M. Llewellyn, Jr rhompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn,.P.A. . i aW South Eighteenth Street ~t Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 8ffice of Desegregation Monitor 8ne Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompso~ Thompson \u0026amp; Lleweltyn, P.A. i 12 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3976 Filed 11/11/2005 R!CftVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER NOV 14 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONA'OIDNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS For its response to the Court's November 8, 2005 Order regarding the Magnet Review Committee Budget, LRSD states that it has no objection to the budget and agrees that the budget should become effective immediately. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3976 Filed 11/11/2005 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 11, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark. hagemeier@ ag. state. ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@ jlj .com johnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitols, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Black stock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller R:x Dat e/Time 5013744187 P.002  NO'v . 15. 2005 NOV J. ~ LOO~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW.JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO THE  COURT'S ORDER OE NOVEMBER 8, 2005 PIAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In response to the Court's Order of November 8, 2005, the Joshua Intervenors oppos~ the budget as presepted. I. There is no explanation for the increase in special education costs. 2. There is no e:xplanation for the substantial increase in the regular classroom material and supply costs. 3. There is no explanation for the material increase in the indirect costs. 4. To approve the budget as it is written by increasing costs will tend to favor students in racially balanced schools and disfavor students in majority black schools . This is so because double funding has materially been eliminated in the racially identifiable schools being closed (Mitchell and.Rightsell) and the district has engaged in budget cuts whi~h reduce services and - educational programs to the students who are enrolled in. o.onmagnet schools. Rx Date/ Time NOV-15-2005(TUE) 08:59 5013744187 \" NOV': f's. 2005 g : 30AM JOHN W WALKER P A NO. 163 L Wherefore, Joshua requests that the court set this matter for hearing. Respectfully submitted, Isl John W. Walker John W. WalkeJ;, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF sytsem on this 14th day of November, 2005. LsUohn Y{. Walker P. 003  Rx Date/Time NOV-1 5-2005CTUE) 08: 59 ~ NOV. 15.2005 9:29AM JOHN W WALKER PA 5013744187 N0 . 163 JOHN W WALKER, P.A .. Attorney at La.v 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: November 15, 2005 To: Donna Creer Fax: 758-5366 Re: MRC Budget Sender: John W. Walker P.l/3 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ _ (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVERSHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVEALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL ''\u0026lt;(501) 374--3758\u0026gt;'1 The infonnation contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged qnd confidential infonnation intended only for tho use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. P. 001 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of s IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS The Little Rock School District (LRSD), for its response to the Court's bench  ruling of November 7, 2005, states: 1. The Court has directed LRSD to file \"a proposed order which would - outline how this one matter will be handled until. we get the final evaluations as LRSD has agreed to do.\" 2. Dr. Ross now has all of the data he needs to complete the Compass Leaming, SMART/TIIRIVE and Reading Recovery evaluations. Dr. Ross expects to be able to produce preHminary evaluations of those three programs by December 21, 2005 and ''final drafts\" by mid-February, 2006. See November 11, 2005 letter from Dr. Ross to Dr. DeJamette attached. as Exhibit A. 3. Dr. Catterall requires scale scores from the 2005 benchmark exams in order to complete his evaluation of Year-Round Education. LRSD expects that the  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 2 of 5 scale scores needed by Dr. Catterall will be available within the next seven days. If that can be done, Dr. Catterall expects to produce a draft report by December 31, 2005 and a final report not later than February 3, 2006. See November 9, 2005 letter from Catterall to DeJarnette, attached as Exhibit B. 4. LRSD has a regulation (IL-R) which applies to the review and completion of program evaluations. A copy ofregulati.on IL-R is attached~ Exhibit C. The LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) Department estimates that the requirements ofregulation IL-R can be met within the following amounts of time after a draft evaluation is received from an external consultant: a. The evaluation team meets with the evaluator to review the report and provide feedback - one week; b. The evaluator incorporates the feedback provided by the evaluation team and produces a \"near-final\" draft- one week; c. The stakeholders, including Joshua, ODM and the LRSD cabinet and Board review the near-final draft - 30 days; d. The LRSD Board discusses the report with the evaluator at the Board meeting immediately following completion of the 30 day review and approves the final evaluation report. 2  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 3 of 5 5. Given the time required by Drs. Ross and Catterall to complete their work, and for the review and approval process required by LR.SD regulation IL-R. LRSD proposes that the Court's Order concerning the completion of the 2004-05 Step 2 program evaluations contain the following language: a. LRSD will file with the Court and serve upon ODM and Joshua the preliminary evaluation reports for Compass Learning, SMART ffHRlVE and Reading Recovery as soon as LRSD receives those reports from Dr. Ross. LRSD expects to receive those reports by December 21, 2005. b. LRSD will file with the Court and serve upon ODM and Joshua the preliminary evaluation report concerning Year-Round Education as soon as it receives that report from Dr. Catterall. LRSD expects to receive that report no later than December 31, 2005. c. If LRSD learns th.at it will not receive any preliminary evaluation report from Dr. Ross or Dr. Catterall by the dates set forth above, it will immediately so inform the Court and the parties. d. Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation repons discussed above, LRSD will review the evaluations and approve them in 3  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 4 of 5 accordance with the process set forth in LRSD regulation IL-R. Upon completion of that process, which is expected to result in Board approval of all four evaluations at the February 23, 2006 Board meeting, LRSD will file the final Step 2 evaluations with the Court and serve them upon ODM and Joshua. e. If it appears to LRSD that the final evaluation repo~s may be delayed for any reason, LRSD will so inform the Court and the parties. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order regarding the completion of the required four Step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year in accordance with the proposals set forth in thisResponse to Order. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christqpher Heller 4  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/1712005 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 17, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Oerk of the Court using the C.M/BC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ai,State.ar.us sjones@mwsr7.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol~ Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W, Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 5 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS November 11, 2005 Dr. Karen DeJamette Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 3001 s. Pulaski little Rock. AR 77W6 Dear Dr. DeJamette: Center for Research in EdUC!ltfonal Policy A lermenee Center of exce11ence 32S ~Ing Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 Offlca: 901.678.2310 Toll-Free: 866,670.6147 Fex: 901.678.257 www mtrnPhlS.egu/s,p The spring 2005 benchmark scores have arrived for students in the three programs we are . evaluating for the Little Rock School District-Compass Leaming. SMARTITHRIVE. and Reading Recovery. While they do not include students' scale scores, the raw scores and perfonnance levels appear sufficient for our evaluations. In the nen few days. we will complete a review of the data files; assumina they are in usable form. we will then combine the benchmark scores with data collected during the past school year in preparation for our statistical analyses. Dr. Canen.11 and I agreed earlier that six weeks appears to be enough time for managing the data, analyzing the data, and writing our reports for your considaation. That means that the draft report will be ready for initial review during the Decemba holidays (target dau:: December 21. 2005) and our discussion of it will occur in January. ff there arc not extensive changes required. we plan to have the final drafts ready for you by mid-February. If we encounter any unanticipated problems or delays, we will notify you immediately on ~currence. Please contact me if you have any concerns or questions about this plan. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross, PhD. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy I  Case 4:82-cv--00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of 1 _u_N_IVE_R_s__m_ o_ F_c_A_LIF_o_R_N_IA_._L__os _A_ N_c_E_L_E_s____ _ --. . H:~~ ... k\u0026amp;O.CT  1M.V19  1ll\\llNC  I.OIMICll.11  a1vs-\u0026amp;  !AH DIieo  1AH Fl...0!800 ....,,_ - ~ - ~-- November 16, 2005 Karen DeJamett.e, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department tittle Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Utiie Rock. AR 77206-28'73 Dearl\u0026lt;aren: Onidua1c ScllOol off.duQl!on \u0026amp; Jnfornlion Studies r.o.Box951s,t LosAt1gdQ.CA 90095-1511 I understand that the 200S Benchmark iesults or studenfB participatf:ng in Year-Round P.ducatian have a:rlved at LRSD. They .include ~dents' raw scores and performance levels but not the 1eale scores. \u0026amp;cause of the need tQ link 2005 test scores with prior year test \u0026amp;cores a.s the only way to uses., progress in the YRE schools\u0026gt; I will need 2005 Benchmark scale scor~, l!1'\\d not taw test sco,:es to complete my analyses. As I stated earlier, the daia review, 8tatistical 8Nlyses, and composition of my draft :report will require about six week,. I still anticipate delivering a draft teport to you within 6 weeks of ~eivhig usable scale scares. A,suming these score, become available to m.e in the coming days, I would have a draft report to you by year'3 end and a final report to you not later than F~bruary 3, 2006. Sin\u0026amp;:erely, /\\~ 'Pt:dsor Vole~ (310) 8%$-S5'71 Pu: ($10)206-6293 l:;-m1il: jamucOgscla.11~la.cdu = EXHIBIT t Pi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R PROGRAM EVALUATION AGENDA Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance to the staff fnvolved in the evaluation of pr0grams required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides funding for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations J Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved In its Board-approved Program EvaJuation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. {See Joint Committee on Standan:ls for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, T1 Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) There are four attributes of an evaluation:  UIIIH)' (U) - e'ialuatlons are lnfcrmatM, timely, and influential  Fauiblllty (F) - eveluations must be operable In the natural setting and must not consume more resourees then necessary  Propriety (?)  right:5 of Individuals must be protected  Accuracy (A)  evaluations should produce sound lnfOrmatlon Prospective, controlled, summative evaluations are at one end of a spectrum of actMties that review District operations. Other activities in this continuum include fonnative and less formal and rigorous evaluations, regular and occasional assessments, and fast or brief snapshots\". As rigor and fom,ality diminish along the range of reviews, fewer standards apply. Examples of how the standards apply are found following table, adapted from The Program Evaluation Standards, pages 18 and 19: Checklist for Applying the Standards The reader should interpret the information provided in this table with reference both to the Standards (cited above) and the peculiar circumstances of given program reviews. Double plus signs(++} indicate that standards are fully addressed. Single pluses(+) mean that the standard is a concern but not necessarily fully addressed, and zeros (0) point to standards not usually applicable. Not all summative evaluation will fully satisfy every standard, and o1her examples may observe more standards than indicated here. Note. however, that all reviews fully observe human rights and impartial reports, ,_~ ,xH-I - ,--. 1 1c Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 2 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ILR Fonna1lw Standard SUmmative lnfolmal Evaluation Procen evaluations Assessments {School Portia/las) Snaashots U1 Stakeholder Identification ++ ++ 0 0 U2 Evaluator Credibility ++ ++ + 0 U3 Information Scope \u0026amp; Selection ++ 0 + + U4 Values Identification ++ + ++ + us Report Clarity ++ ++ + + U6 Report Timeliness \u0026amp; Dissemination ++ + + 0 U7 Evaluation Impact ++ + + + F1 Practical Procedures ++ + + ++ F2 PolltJcal Viabillty ++ 0 0 0 F3 Cost Effectiveness ++ + + + P1 Service Orientation ++ ++ + + P2 Fonnal AQreements ++ + 0 0 P3 Rights of Human Subjects ++ ++ ++ ++ P4 Human Interaction ++ + 0 0 PS Complete \u0026amp; Fair Assessment ++ ++ + + P6 Disclosure of Findings ++ + + + P7 Conflict of Interest ++ 0 + 0 P8 Fiscal Responsibility ++ ++ 0 0 A1 Proaram Documentation ++ + + + A2 Context Analysis ++ + ++ + A3 Described Purposes and Procedures ++ ++ + + A4 Defensible Information Sources ++ + + ++ AS Valid Information ++ + + + A6 Reliable Information ++ + + + A7 Systematic Information ++ ++ + + AS Analysis of Quantitative Data ++ . ++ 0 + A9 Analysis of QualitatiVe Data ++ ++ + + A 1 o Justified Conclusions ++ + + + A 11 Impartial Reporting ++ ++ ++ ++ A 12 Meta-evaluation ++ 0 0 + 2. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 3 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ILR Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department will recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensjve program evaluation. The recommendation will include a proposed budget. a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Will the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Will the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Will the program be significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Hany P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco. CA:. Jossey-Bass Publishers. 5-7.) 2. The Superintendent will recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agenda-with anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. 3. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agenda, the Director of PRE will establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team will include. at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated. a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation. and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required. then other staff may be added as necessary. 5. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation. the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing will be retained as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader will establish a calendar of regularfy scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: 3 I I I I I I I I I I I Case 4:82-cv~00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R A Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, induding a review of the Board's policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. B. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Director of PRE related to any additional assistance that may be required. C. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. 0. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students E. Generate a list of the data required to answer each research questlOn, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student perfonnance data should be included. {See Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) F. Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. G. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendent's Cabinet) to stakeholders. {See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSOC); Robby Champion (Fall 2002). \"Map Out Evaluation Goals.\" Journal of Staff Development. 78-79; Thomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press: Blaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Mproaches and Practical Guidelines; 153-169; Beverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry; Using Evaluation to Promote Stude!J! Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; and Joseph S. Wholey, Hany P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994}. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) 7. Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: 4 - - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 5 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL Of STRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R  to monitor the completion of assignments;  to collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data:  to pose any necessary new questions to be answered;  to review drafts and provide feedback to the writer;  to formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not beingsuccessful for the improvement of African-American achievement;  to assist in final proofreading; and  to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. 8. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Director of PRE at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Board'.s agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. 9. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet. 10. The program evaluation team will plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. 11. The Director of PRE wilt prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information: A. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifJcations. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. B. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. C. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. 5 --' NOV.18.  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 6 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ILR D. Grade-level desaiptions of the teachers who were Involved In the assessment process (e.g., all fourth~grade math teachers. all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 12. When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations 1o other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Director of PRE for approval. 13. Each program evaluation team will meet with the Director of PRE after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See \"Joellen Killion (2002).  Evaluate the Evaluation.N Assessing Impact Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford. OH: National Staff Development Council. 46, 123-124.) Approved: December 2004 6 NOV.18.2005 1:22PM JOHN W WALKER PA Date: To: Fax: Re: JOHN W WALKER, P.A. A.rtorney ar Lczy,; 1723 Broadway Litrle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374~4187 FAX TRANS:MISSION COVER SHEET rt/n/oo - . MPI,t f~f / ~ 1i-ria a 11 -o, oo Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE l _ ,(including cover sheet)] PAGE(S). INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL   ''\u0026lt;(501) 374 .. 37S$\u0026gt;\" -- The information contained in tltis facsimile message is atmmey privileged and confidential information interui~d only for th.e usci of the individual or entity named above. ff the read.er of this message is nor the intended recipient, or me employee oi- ~ent responsible ro deliver it to the inten\u0026lt;1ed recipient, you are hereby notified that any dis3emimtion, disiribmion or copying of this communicirtion is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and rerurn tbe original message to us at.the above address via the TJ.S. Postal Seivice. Thruuc you. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1~ ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED NOY 2 8 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS I have changed my mind on the Rule 11 ruling made orally at the close of the November 7, 2005 hearing -- it is set aside and held for naught. As was mentioned at the hearing, LRSD will not pay any part of Mr. Kaplan's attorney's fees or expenses. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day ofNovember, 2005. /s/ Wm. R. Wilson.Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEC. 5. 2005 4 :18PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO . 409 P.2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW~JTR Document 3981 Filed 11/23/2005 P::.igP. 1 ,:if 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DIS1R.ICT COURT .nA:s n::.KN Vl::STRl.CT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTIE ROCK SCHOOL DlSTRICT VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULAKSICOUNTYSPECIAL .~rwnnr nY\u0026lt;::'Tl)rr-r l:'T ,. r --------- .... ~'-\"\"_. , ...,.., ra..1.,1. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL. KATHER1NE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLJ.ThTTIFF IJ.t..t' .t..NLJANT~ INTER.VENO RS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS REPLY TO LRSD S RESPONSE TO THE COURT S ORDli'.\"A 01\" NQVJ,.1'-fflER \"!. 20~ Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, ieply to the LR.SD s response to the court s order as follows: 1. LRSD shall identify all members of the evaluation team and provide a written description for each of them of their respective roles and resp0Il3ibilities in the evaluation process. 2. LRSD shall identify the schools where each program being evaluated is being implemented. and it shall further set forth by school: (a) explain the current status of the program under evaluation; and (b) the number of students participating in each program by grade, race and gender. It shall also set forth budgetary information regarding each of the programs at each of the schools. DEC. 5.2005 4:18PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO.409 P.3 Case 4:82~cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3981 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 3 3. LRSD should be required to set forth a schc~e of dates for the steps that each evaluator and others will take to canplete the assi~ent of each evaluator. Specific, separate schedules are reeded for each expert because information provi~ by LRSD regarding Dr. Ross does not appear to be congruent. Compare paragraph 2 at page 1 (re final draft in midFebruary) with paragraph S(d) at pages 3-4 (Board approval of all four evaluations at Fehn1:ny 23, 2006 meeting). 4. The Joshua Intervenors and the ODM shall be provided access to the staff members of PRE and t.o the experts without limitation and they shall be entitled to receive any writings regarding the evaluation process that are generated by any of the IRSD and expert witness participants. The participation and presence of LRSD counsel is neither required nor disallowed during such exchanges of infonnation. 5. Joshua proposes that item S(d) should read: Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation reports discussed above, LR.SD tl:cugh. PP~ *ulll w.~t witrJ. the; OD?v1 , Jv:;huii, wU i.hc. experts to .~~i-,;,; and \"owld,;1 ik: wwm1;ni.:i of foshua and ODM r~gardmg thi. iha.ft lcpUl~. Joshua awi ODM shall aiso have tile right to 5u.l.11uiL tucw.er comments up until the time of Board action. jos.ilua Shall have the right to appear before the school board prior to the board action regarding the reports. lt is expected that the board members shall engage m open dialogue regarding any concerns that are voiced by Joshua or ODM at any meeting which the board holds regarding the subject. 6. After the time of final approval of the evaluatiom, Joshua shall have the right to comment to LRSD regarding the use being made of the evaluations. LRSD shall promptly respond to any such comments or inquiry. 2 DEC. S.2005 4:18PM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.409 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3981 Filed 11/23/2005 Respectfully submitted, W John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. i 723 Hroadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) Email address: inhnw11lkP.M1tty(n1ac!.cc\"' 22 Lvcust A ven.ue Lcxiugiun, MA 02421 iBl-862-1955 P. 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Response has been electronically fifod with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC S)Stem which will send.notifi~tfon !(I such filing !C ill counsel of record, ls/John W. Walker 3 DEC. 5.2005 Date: To: FQ)C: Re: 4: 17PM JOHN W WALKER PA Tn1-lhT TJ\"7 U\"'-\"..\u0026amp;.....Lt ,,. Attorney at Law ] 723 'RrMdway T.itrl~ x,,.,.1i, J,,.1,,,..,.~,.~ 7-,-,11~ - ~ - - -----,  ...,..M..., I MVV T:lepl,onc (50lj J74-37J8 Fw; (50lj ji4-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET December 5, 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 371-0100 --NO.409- P.1 . D A 1 . .ft. . Sender: John W. Walker YOU SHDrn,n RP.r'li'.rrn:. [ (fr:c!ud:ng CC\".,'~ .:h~ot}] PACE(S), INCLUDlNG T'.rilS COVER S.'f.!EET. IP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, ?LE.ASE CALL \"..;.(Svij 37-,.3758\u0026gt;:, The infonnation contained in this facsimile message is attomeyprivilegedand confidential infonnation intended wtly for the use of the imJMdllal or entity named above. If the reader of this message is l10t the intended r~~lp~ or we empioyee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you arc hereby notified ihit 'iw.} ~tion, w.stn\"bution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have ~i-.-::d :!ii, wwmunlcatiuii. iii error, piease immediate notify us by teiephone, and return the original message to ~ :.t :he =c: ~asi via .hu U .. S. Posual Sc,rvice. T'.nank you. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 PagRttE\\\\JED NO'J 2 8 100~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION Qff\\CEOf IDllG OESEGREGAl\\ON M0~\\10 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS For its Response to \"Joshua Intervenors Reply to LRSD' s Response to the Court's Order of November 7, 2005,\" the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct states: In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law. 2. On August 20, 2001, this Court directed counsel for the ioshua Intervenors, for the second time, \"to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case.\" Order, August 20, 2001 (attached). 3. Counsel for Joshua has violated the Court's August 20, 2001 Order and Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Consequently, on Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 4 November 18, 2005, counsel for LRSD wrote counsel for Joshua to make the following request: \"I request that you immediately cease communication with LRSD administrators about any matter in which you represent a person whose interests are potentially adverse to the Little Rock School District.\" Counsel for LRSD also addressed the question of Joshua's role as a monitor in this case: With respect to your representation of the Joshua Intervenors, I understand that the District Court expects Joshua to continue to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD' s compliance obligations. As I have told you before, this monitoring should be done in a way that does not violate Rule 4.2. If you will identify Joshua's monitors, I will make sure that those people have appropriate access to LRSD personnel and documents so that they can fulfill the Court's expectations. Any communications from you concerning LRSD v. PCSSD, or any other matter in which you are representing a client, should be directed to me. November 18, 2005 letter from Heller to Walker (attached). 4. In compliance with the Court's November 7, 2005 bench ruling, the Joshua Intervenors filed today a Reply to LRSD' s pleading of November 17, 2005. In paragraph 4 of that Reply, Joshua proposes that the Court enter an order which contains the following language: The Joshua Intervenors and the ODM shall be provided access to the staff members of PRE and to the experts without limitation and they shall be entitled to receive any writings regarding the evaluation process that are generated 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 3 of 4 by any of the LRSD expert witness participants. The participation and presence of LRSD counsel is neither required nor disallowed during such exchanges of information. 5. Without telling the Court what they are doing, and without providing the Court the relevant information set forth above, the Joshua Intervenors are asking the Court to overturn its August 20,2001 Order and the requirements of Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Joshua seeks access to PRE staff members \"without limitation.\" Joshua requests that the \"presence of LRSD counsel\" not be required. The Court has already ruled on this issue, and Joshua should not be allowed to change that ruling, particularly without telling the Court what it is trying to do. 6. Many of the PRE staff are unavailable to help provide a further response to the pleading filed today by the Joshua Intervenors. LRSD expects that it will supplement this response upon their return after the holiday. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that any order issued by the Court concerning the completion of the evaluations required of LRSD not contain the language in paragraph 4 of the Reply filed by the Joshua Intervenors on November 23, 2005. 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 4 of 4 Respectfully submitted, UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-201 l Ls{ Christopher Heller CERTIEI.CATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 23, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Cleik. of the Court using the CMJEC. system. which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar. us fil_ones@mws~w.com ~ones@ilj.com i9hnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Judge J. Thomas Ray Gene Jones U.S. District Courthouse Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitols, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 7220 l ~/ Christopher Heller 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Case4:82\"-cv-=00666..-\\VRW JTR . ... Document 3982 Doetm ,ent a483 Filed 11/23/2005 Filed 0S/20t20Q1 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STA~DISTRICT COURT  ~~~SA8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG_ i O 2001 WESTERN DIVISION LITI'LEROCKSCHOOLDISTRIC1,  p~ vs. PULASKI COUN'IY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, etal., 'Defendants;        MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. et al.,  '   Intervenors, * . KATHERINE KNIGlIT, et al., Intervenoni.    ORDER  No. 4:82CV00866 SWW On August 17, 2001\u0026gt; the Cowt held a telephone conference in this matter toaddreS$ -several pending motions. For the. reasons stated at the telephone c:onference, the Court takes the following action on these motions: The Joshua Intervcnors' motion for pre1imimuy injunction [docket no. 3471] is hereby DENIED. Counsel fortbc-Joshua Intcrvenors aud Pulaski County Special School District have . .. . '. . indicated their intent to adibss., substance of the Josbualntcrvenors' related com:cted motion for relief from orders~ on April 27; 2000 and May9, 2001 by defendant Gary Smith  . . . '  [docket no. 3473] without_tbis Court's ~ce; therefore, the Court'directs the Joshua . . . Intcrvenors to inform the Cowt no later than October 17, 2001, whether it is necessary for the . . l Court to ruJe on tbia_motion or whed1c:r the moti~ should.be rcDl?ved from the Court's docket. Little Rock School bisuict's motion for protective order and.for' emergency hearing Court's considedion... (docket no. 3477] is bcrcl?YDF.NIED wrraour~ICE beaiuse itis not~ 11  !'for-th.e.--....._ ..._ , . EXHIBIT -.f ti: . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 2  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3483 Filed 08/20/2001 Page 2 of 4 .., Little Rock School District's motion for conteUlpt [docket no. 3480} is hereby DENIED WITHOUTPREIUDICE. To cls.rify its previous Order, the Court.directs counsel for Joshua Jnterveuors to go through counsel for die Little Rock School District when seeking infomiation.  from the district or district officials and pcrso~ that is pertinent to the ca.e. and to infon:n . .. counsel for~ Little RO\u0026lt;ik School District prior w oontacting district officials and personnel  about matters not currently before the Court. Con. cerning 11 Baker Recruitment Plan [docket no. 3456]; the Pulaski C.o unty Special ' J School District js directed to filo mrJ supplemental.information no later than Tuesday, August 21, 2001, and the Joshua Interveno.rs arc directed to respond 10 any supplement within five days from the date the supplcmcnt is filed. . -,J.._ _ . . IT IS SO ORDERED nns i/Jl_DAY OF AUOUST, 2001 UNITED STATES DISTRlct COURT iHIS OQCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COM~UANCE Wl1lf RULE 58 ~DIOB.ll{I) FRCP ON 2\u0026lt; -a ,. . ol ,..av_..JA__~.. ---- 2: Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 1 of 2 .W\u0026amp;UCltU.H.tlJ~W(lnf1,..) MICIU.\u0026amp;\u0026amp;.LMQOALP-.4 IYIOKM. 111aMM1.JL P.4. WALTDll. UILJU.r.A. JAMES A. MJTil1\". I . A.. DV1N A. 0l.UI. f ,A. Pkl.DU.la.\u0026amp;. UUllY.P..A. WIU.UMA. WADOSU..,._.,,A.. OaG\\l I. CAVIL JL. P.A. ICOT'J' J. UJK:A\u0026amp;UL P.A. J4 .... C, CXAU.  .. P.\u0026gt;.. IDUlT t. UACK. a., f ,A. TIIOMAII, LIOOlff, P.A. /. I.UUOWW.f..t. JOIUI MWIT WATIGII. P.A. I.U,U C. 1.UU. I\u0026amp;.. f.A f4U1,\u0026amp;u,ria[AJ,(1D,P,A. KAllYA.1.IORT, P.A. u..a.av w. auau. 1.1,,.. ,con x. ruca;u. r.A. 4. WYCICU1' )llUlr. JL. I.A. 0UY IJ.roN WUI, J.A.. MMU IDWAUll,U,all, I.A. IIICIC.OA\u0026amp;D- P.\u0026gt;.. J4MU M. 100-'0II, f.l.. TOIILU, /OIIU. I .A. IAMU W. AXTON. P,4. MYID D. WJUOIC. P.A. J. SKltKlm IUIHU. n\u0026amp;. P,-', IIHU't JI. GOU. P.A. OO\u0026gt;IA\u0026amp;.D a. MCOJII. P.A. MVRa II. OILU. I .A. WJWAW t'MO.._., U.ffU, P.A. CAM.A OUHJrillU IPAillCOUL f.4. JOUl'KI, IUUf, 11.. P.A.. JOWAJfNC. aw.u,.1.A. lUZ.UlfM.0.IIIIMU\u0026amp;\u0026amp;AY,J, . .\\. .L 000ff0111D.LA.'WION. P.A. CIWlto,t\u0026amp;ll Hllll:1. P.Jt- KTfl' I, 0DmlY1 P.A. 1.4\\aA NIMUY IMU'11. P.A. 1'11104 K JOKNIOlt. P,A.. M\u0026gt;NA1 I, SHARL P.A. U.WU II, IMIT\u0026gt;L I .A. WU.LU.M ... GWPIN n\u0026amp;. P.A. CIJ'INl\u0026amp;O w. rt..UNanT. f . A. VIA Fax Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: LRSD Dear John: FRIDAY El.DREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A UMITliD I.IAIUTY PARTIIERSHIP www.fridayflrm.ec1n1 o4GO WEIT CAPITOL AVlNUI, :SUITE~ LITTLEROCIC, AIUCAHSA.s 722Cl1-M22 TELEl'NONli .at-371-2011 n.X501376-2U7 1421-TH 'UTIIALL DIIIV\u0026amp;, IUJTI 1U P4Ylffll/1WI, 4,._ 1270Mlt1 nu,HONI \u0026lt;IJ'I-M .. i011 ,,x '1Mtf~ltU November 18, 2005 'D,UIW.1..UUllfOTON.1,i,. I. IG\u0026lt;=XAIL J'JCIIJIXI. , ,,,_ M-UYIII L OIU.IIIU I. COLIW.UI WUTUOO\u0026amp;. /Lo P.\u0026gt;.. Jol.lJIOlll. C0alnrllL,1.A. iu.z.NM. OWIJll, P-A. IAIIINl, JmlDaDl,P.4. JWIICJI\u0026amp; TlllftLI.P.A. JOIIPH   MC'XAY. P..A, AW.umu.A, IPLUL P.\u0026gt;.. JAY f , fAYloOI, P,\u0026gt;.. .MAffnl ... lilTIII IJ:r All W, DUU ,OIIPIIG, IIICIIClU aona T, lMlT\u0026gt;I ).YAHA.~MA\u0026gt;l 1IIIOTIIY C. IZE1L T, MICll\u0026amp;Ull .. 101 XAUII L HAUU.7 l.u.AJI M. CDTTOH UJaTUI' $. IOWl,..,UIDS Au.Jlf G. a\u0026amp;Yil l.Ol01\u0026amp;Y WIT~ t.0UMCa JCf.\\YYAMK.GIIDflll JCJIDI J. llllll\u0026amp;ICII .uwm.+.CAPPI- IU\\IIN L IDOU 1.W4'TNIY11UMII.JI. -1111,nwo-.. IWI-Yll,loUIPl11-.. Wl.\u0026amp;1T U/411 C. IMffll ... -...wona, IITWILMAJ'4U DaC L CUUIJJII UIUGO'laa L OOX IATftaYN 4. laUl4mC1t J. ADAM'nU-1 \u0026amp;.WMl,.u,JJ.Y .. - WlWMIII.IClnOtl.P.I.. WIW'AM~n\u0026amp;\u0026amp;Y WIWAM L PATTON, lL ._T, U,UII.I.J.LP.~ CMIUttofN\u0026amp; MIU.la Ll?Tl.l ROC~ T\u0026amp;LH1-a11MI P.Altlt1- .. ,..,.,_.,, It has been reported to me that you have been communicating directly with Little Rocle School District Administrators during the course of your representation of various clients, including the Joshua Intervenors. You lmow that the Little Rock School District is represented by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Your direct commllDication with our clients violates Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. I request that you immediately cease communication with LRSD administrators about any matter in which you represent a person whose interests are potentially adverse to the Little Rock School District With respect to yolU' representation of the Joshua Jntervcnors. I understand that the District Court expects Joshua to continue to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD's compliance obligations. As I have told you before, this monitoring should be done in a way that does not violate Rule 4.2 If you will identify 1 oshua's monitors, I will make sure that those people have appropriate access to LRSD personnel and documents so that they can fulfil the Court's expectations. Any communications from you concerning LRSD v. PCSSD, or any other matter in which you arc representing a client, should be directed to me. CJH/bk Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 2 Mr. John Walker November 18, 2005 Page2 cc: Dr. Roy Brooks Dr. Karen DeJ amette Olivine Roberts IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTR1CT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFACEOf DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is LRSD's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 3938). A hearing was held on November 7, 2005 to discuss, among other things, the merits of the motion. Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law made in the hearing, the motion is GRANTED. The following is directed: 1. LRSD has until 5 p.m., Friday, January 6, 2006, to file and serve the preliminary evaluation reports for Compass Learning, SMART/THRIVE, Year-Round Education, and Reading Recovery. 2. Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation reports, Joshua will have fourteen (14) days to submit written comments to LRSD and PRE. Simultaneous copies must be sent to ODM and the Court. Before any Board action, Joshua will also have the opportunity to appear before the LRSD School Board to address their concerns, objections, or support regarding the evaluations. Joshua should promptly notify the LRSD school board if they intend to take - advantage of this opportunity. 3. lfLRSD learns that it will not receive a preliminary evaluation report from Dr. Ross or Dr. Catterall by the date set forth above, it will immediately inform the Court and the parties. 4. Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation reports, LRSD will review the evaluations and approve them in accordance with the process set forth in LRSD regulation IL-R. After the completion of that process, which is expected to result in Board approval of all four evaluations at the February 23, 2006 Board meeting, LRSD will file the final Step 2 evaluations and serve them on ODM and Joshua. 5. IfLRSD learns that the final evaluation reports may be delayed for any reason, LR.SD must promptly inform the Court and the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2005. Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITLE ROCK, ARKAJ\",SAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education November 30, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 151-0 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones  425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFFICE OF DESEQREQATIOH MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of November 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair- Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle * Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for November 2005. Respectfully Submitted, co mith, General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on November 30, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REC'EIVED DEC l_-:- 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 sa'se'8'\"6'ii\".'tfi '\"1a/,j~iW?M iIa61\u0026amp;aFoaot\u0026gt;'Erri3:1r;?200 ~tat~fFo~n~d \"~ :rnr~$s700WJ~t~:12e=--=:.........-.=--==. ....... B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This 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.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\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\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1072","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","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":["2005-11"],"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--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Curricula","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"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/1072"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nAgenda RECEIVED DEC 14 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting HAPPY HOLIDAYS DeceYUber 200s ,.. (\") \u0026gt;,, t~ ... c 0:11: oz ~~ !E~ -c::\n,oz o.....n... r- l5 (\")Z ,j.!..:. en n!Jl\n._\n,o\n,om (\") '= ~ ~ -en .c ..\n,o, ~o 0:11: ~(\") c::=I \u0026gt;1\n1 ezn I. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Regular Meeting December 15, 2005 5:30 p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) C. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association D. Joshua lntervenors IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update G. Update: Reorganization H. Update: School Improvement/ Academic Support V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MA TIERS: A. Minutes Regular Board Meeting - 11-17-05 n!JI\n_.\n,:,\n,:,m (')~ -\u0026lt;\n,:, \u0026gt;:,,\n- u, .c :,-\n,n:, 15 i ~(') c=I \u0026gt;~ z u, Board of Directors Meeting December 15, 2005 Page2 VI. BOARD POLICY AND REGULATIONS REVIEW A. First Reading: Policy IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements with Regulations Review of Regulations: ID-R, Student Schedules\nIHBDA-R2, Academic Improvement Plan\nIHCC-R, Pre-AP and AP Courses, Grades 6-12\nand IKC-R, Class Rankings/Grade-Point Averages VII. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES A. Proposed Changes in Middle and High School Curriculum Programs, 2006-2007 B. Elementary Textbook Adoption Timeline Extension VIII. ADMINISTRATION IX. A. Guiding Principles and Goals B. Otter Creek Attendance Zone Adjustment HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes X. FINANCE \u0026amp; SUPPORT SERVICES A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report XI. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1 . Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XII. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XIII. ADJOURNMENT n!I'\n_,., ,.,m n~ ~ -C/1 0.., ~ o\"' 01: ~n C: ::::i \u0026gt;~ z C/1 I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME TO GUESTS Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS C. LRCTA / 0. JOSHUA IV. REPORTS \u0026amp; COMMUNICA'TIONS A. BOARD MEMBERS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: December 15, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: December 2005 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: The design for replacing two (2) classroom buildings at Forest Heights has begun. The goal is to start construction soon after school is out this summer. This will require that contractors bid the project this spring. The architect is The Borne' Firm. Planning has begun on the Child Nutrition office building. The building will be located south of the Child Nutrition warehouse at Quigley Stadium. It is too early to know when construction will start, but it may be as early as spring of 2006. The architect is Morris \u0026amp; Associates. RATIONALE: Monthly reports are submitted to the Board to keep members up-to-date on construction projects in the District. FUNDING: Bond Funds RECOMMENDATION: Report item\nno action necessary. PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman, District Engineer\nc C: ~ m Facility Name Central Media - -- Gibbs CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD DECEMBER 15, 2005 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I Project Description I Cost Roof $85,000 - Addi!~ - -- $705,670 I Est. completion Date D-ec--05 Dec-05 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - FALL/ WINTER 2005-06 Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I t:.st. completion Date Booker -- HVAC (QZAB) $239,560 Unknown Brady -- MetalR~ $250,000- Unknown --- - - Central HVAC (QZAB) $919,760 ~ Unknown - --- --- - Dunbar HVAC (QZAB) - ----- -- - ! $278,800 -Un-kno-wn Fair Park -- HVAC (QZAB) $79,480 Unknown J. A. Fair - Sewer Line $82,900- ~ Unknown Mann HVAC_(QZAB) $382,400 - Unknown -- - -- Terry Bus Drive $100,000 Unknown BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED I I I t:s1. \\.,OmpIeuon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Adm- inistration Annex Electrical Upgrade --- $9,166 U-nk-no-wn Alternative Learning Center ADA Adaptations $43,134 Unknown -- --- Alternative Learning Center -Restroom Renovation -- - - $37,742 - U-nkn-own Alternative Learning Center Electrical Upgrade $2,696 Unknown - -- Booker Electrical Upgrade I Unknown Unknown Chicot -- Electrical Upgrade - Unknown - Unknown Child Nutrition Renovation $399.~ Unknown Dodd - - Restroom Renovation - ---- --- $26,959 Unknown ~ Forest Heights Remod-el - $4,420,128 Aug-07 Fulbright ADA Adaptations $21 ,567 --Unknown Ful~ight -- ~ enovate Restrooms -- - -- -- $10.~- - -- Unknown A ddition/Traffic Planning --- Fulbright $2,500 Unknown Geyer Springs -- Replace Restroom Stalls - - -- $4,313 -- Unknown ADA Adaptations --- ,. $21 ,567 Unknown Henderson - Renovation -- --- $450,000 Summer 2006 ADA Adaptations --- ,-- IRC $21 ,567 Unknown Restroom Renovation ___ - $21,567 - -- Unknown Restroom Renovation --- -- - $32,~ -- McDermott Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS - Energy monitoring system installation --- Unknown - Unknown Rightsell Renovation $2,494,000 Unknown Terry Addition Planning $2,500 Unknown BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED I I I t:st. L\nompIet1on Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Administration Annex - ADA Adaptations $32,351 Unknown Adult Education ADA Adaptations $248,020 U-nkn-own Structural Repairs - ,. -- $53,918 Unknown Alternative Learning Center Roof Repairs $26,959 Unknown Booker - ADA Adaptations ,. $107,835 Spring 2006 Cashion Building ADA Adaptations $21 ,567 Unknown Facility Services ADA Adaptations $32,351 Unknown Install Water Meters at Cooling Towers $4,313 Unknown Emergency Lighting Replacement - $80,876 Unknown Land Purchase - Booker $100,000 Unknown -- -- ,. Garland Renovation ,. $900,000 Partially Complete ADA Adaptations $188,711 Unknown - - Facility Name Henderson Quigley Rockefeller Transportation - Laidlaw West Little Rock School Facility Name Administration Administration Administration Administration Administration Annex Alternative Learning Ctr. Alternative Learning Ctr. Badgett Badgett Bale Bale Bale Bale Baseline Booker Booker Booker Booker Booker Booker Brady Brady Brady Carver Central Carver Carver Central Central Central Parking Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central Central Central Central Central Chicot Chicot Cloverdale Elementary Cloverdale Elem. CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD DECEMBER 15, 2005 BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED I Project Description Cost I .ADA Adaptations I $70,093 I I Restroom U pg rad es $53,918 I ! Dressing Room Renovation $37,742 JADA Adaptations $26,959 Interior Renovation ' $16,175 !ADA Adaptations ' $32,351 i I New School $11 ,782,638 I BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I Project Description Cost I I Asbestos abatement $380,495 I I Fresh air system $55,ooo I Fire alarm I $32,350 I IHVAC $70,000 I : Energy monitoring system installation I Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 1 Energy efficient lighting $82,000 1 I Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 I Fire alarm $18,250 I Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 I I Energy monitoring system I I Partial roof replacement I $269,587 I IHVAC I $664,587 I I Renovation $953,520 I Gym Roof I $48,525 ADA Rest rooms I $25,000 I Energy efficient lighting $170,295 , I Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 !Asbestos abatement $10,900 !Fire alarm $34,501 ' I Addition/renovation $973,621 I I Energy efficient lighting $80,593 'Asbestos abatement $345,072 I , Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Media Center Expansion $167.490 I Parking lot $111 ,742 i HVAC Renovation - Band Area I $225,000 , Reflecting Pond $57,561 Student parking $174,000 ' Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair I $265,000 ,Athletic Field Improvement I $38,000 Irrigation System I $14 ,500 Purchase land for school I Unknown Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations I $2,000,000 1 Ceiling and wall repair I $24,000 Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Front landing tile repair $22,470 Drainage $64,700  Sound Attenuation I $43,134 Demolition $520,750 Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Est. Completion Date Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Est. Completion Date Mar-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Nov-04 May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Oct-04 Aug-04 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Nov-04 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Sep-05 Oct-05 Aug-03 Dec-04 Sep-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Jul-04 Nov-05 Jul-01 2\nc C: ~ m !\" ~ m\n,o\n,o mz c3 ~ ~~ C ::i 0 Gl p .C,, 0 ? IT ff C\nt C,,: z ~ ~ z Facili Name Cloverdale MS Cloverdale M~S-- Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dunbar Facilities Service Facility Services Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD DECEMBER 15, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Est. Completion Proect Descri tion Cost Date Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Jul-01 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,82_2_ Nov-02 Fire Alarm Upgrade - $9,200 Oct-04 Energy efficient lighting - $90,665 Aug-01 Asbestos abatement-ceiling ~ $156,299 Jul-01 Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Aug-02 Renovation/additi~ $6,149,023 Nov-04 7 nterior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 Fire alarm - $12,000 - Aug-03 Remodel t- $799,000 ~g-05 -r\nP arkin-g L-ot- --- $185,000-,- Aug-05 - Roof-- $245,784 May-05 HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Apr-02 Fair Park - ---Energy efficient lighting ~ $90,162 Aug-01 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 Aug-01 J. A. Fair 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music room addition $3,155,640 Aug-04 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 Apr-01 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 Nov-00 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 Jun-01 J. A. Fair - Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair J_rrigation System - $14,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Roof repairs r $391,871 Aug-03 Forest Park Restrooms $152,881 Aug-05 Forest Park Replace window units w7central HVAC $485,258 Nov-03 Forest Park Diagonal parking -- $111,742 Aug-03 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 May-01 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Jun-01 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation ---r-,1,950 Aug-01 Ful~ight Replace rooftop HVAC uni~ $107,835 Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot _L $140,000 Sep-02 Fulbright Roof repairs ~ $200,000 Oct-02 Franklin Renovation -- - $2,511,736 Mar-03 Geyer Springs Roof Repair $161,752 Jun-04 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting ---4--- $76,447 Apr-01 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation 1 $11\n70 Jul-01 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Sep-03 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Aug-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Jul-01 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Aug-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Apr-01 Hall Intercom Feb-01 Hall Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 Henderson Skylight Replacement $319,000 Nov-05 Henderson Lockers $43,854 Dec-04 Henderson Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Jul-01 Henderson Roof replacement gym $107,835 May-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Aug-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Aug-02 IRC Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Jul-02 Jefferson Asbestos abatement $43,639 Oct-01 Jefferson Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Nov-02 Laidlaw Parking lot $269,588 Jul-01 Mabelvale Elem. HVAC (QZAB) $220,000 Nov-05 Mabelvale Elem. Site Work $6,000 Oct-05 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD DECEMBER 15, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facili Name Mablevale Elem Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Pro'ect Description Cost Fire Alarm Upgrade ___ $12,000 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Replace HVAC units - --~ $300,000 Asbestos Abatement ~7 .~ Energy efficient lighting --- - ~06,598 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Est. Completion Date Oct-04 Aug-01 Aug-0~ ~ ~-OI Dec-02 Mabelvale MS __ ~Renovation _ __ $6,851,621 __ Aug-01 Mar-04 Apr-04 Dec-01 Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Asphalt walks The total $1.8 million -- Walkway canopies __ ,is what has been  Boilerreplacem~--- ~ used so far on the Fencing ___ __ projects listed Partial demolition/portable classrooms-----+ completed for M~ Parking Lot Overlay ------~- $65,000 Athletic Field Improvement _____ $38,~ Irrigation Syst~ - __J_ $14,750 Dec-01 ~t-01 ~p-01 ~g-01 ___Ap r-05 Jul-03 Jul-03 Security cameras $36,3_0_0 ______ Jun_-0_1 Energy efficient lighting $303,614 ~ ay-01 Stadiumstands repair --~- $235,000 Aug-01 . Intercom - ~ 6~000 Feb-02 McClellan McClellan McClel~ McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell -- _s:1assroom Addition -----~ $2,155,~ Jul-04 Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst (Adult Education) Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Procurement Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle Fire Alarm Upgrade ---+ $7,700 Energy efficient lighting --+- $79,411 Replace rooftop HVAC units $476,000 Fire alarm --- $16,1~ Asbestos abatement ___ _J __ $253,412 Engergy efficient lighting $88,-297 __ Sep-04 Feb-01 Aug-02 Remodel -+-- $397,600 Replace cooling tower ---~ $37,2_0_3 __ _ Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Oct-05 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Replace shop vent sys~ $20,000 Energy monitoring system installation --$17,145 Renovation - - ~ .395 Cancelled by Board re-use vote 11-17-05 Building Remediation --$165,0_0_0__ Jul-04 Energy efficient lighting___ $103,642 Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation t ~ 16,695 Jul-01 Asbestos abatement $13,000 Jul-01 New Windows -- $215~000 Aug-05 HVAC renovation $237,2~37 -- Aug-01 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 May-01 Energy efficient lighting $81,828 ~ r-01 Asbestos abatement ____ .._ $10,000 Aug-02 Parking lot ____ $138,029 Aug-02 6 classroom addition $888,778 Oct-02 Parking Improvements $142,5~ Aug-03 Addition --- $2,121 ,226 Dec-04 HVAC controls ,- ~10,000 Jun-02 Roof replacement $273 ,877 Sep-01 Exterior lights__ $10,784 Nov-00 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301 ,938 Aug-01 Locker replacement t $120,000 Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Jun-01 Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Jun-02 Fire alarm ___ $25,000 Aug-03 Cafeteria Ceiling __ ~ _ _ $33,378 Aug-05 Replace Entry Doors $13,990 Aug-05 4\nz: C: \"'D ~ m :..\". {ll ::c i!5 i C: \"'D ~ m p .C.,: ,C. rr CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD DECEMBER 15, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost I Pulaski Heights Elementary Clean Exterior Walls i $98,660 . Pulaski Hgts. Elem I Renovation I $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground $17,000 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 . Rockefeller Parking addition I $111 ,742 . Romine !Asbestos abatement $10,000 I Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition : $3,534,675 ! Scott Field Track Renovations I $289,056 : Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 i Southwest I New Corridor Ceiling I $300,000 Southwest 1Addition $2,000,000 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Southwest 1New roof $690,000 Southwest 1 Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Southwest , Drainage I street widening $250,000 , Student Assignment I Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,ooo I Tech Center Phase 1 I Renovation $275,000 i Tech Ctr / Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $3,679,ooo I Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 ' Terry I Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Wakefield . Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 I Wakefield I Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 I Washington I Fire Alarm Upgrade $11,600 I Washington Security cameras $7,900 I Washington Energy efficient lighting I $165,281 I Watson I Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson ,Asbestos abatement $182,241 I Watson Energy efficient lighting I $106,868 Watson Asbestos abatement I $10,000 Watson  Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $800,000 . Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $622,160 Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade I $8,400 Western Hills ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191 ,946 Western Hills Intercom I $7,100 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Williams Drainage Repair I $29,200 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Williams - Energy efficient lighting I $122,719 Wilson HVAC for Cafeteria : $56,000 Wilson Renovation/expansion i $1 ,263,876 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 Woodruff Parking addition $175,000 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 t:st. GompletIon Date Sep-05 Nov-04 Dec-02 Nov-04 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Apr-02 Mar-03 May-05 Jun-01 Aug-05 Nov-04 Aug-00 Oct-03 Jan-02 Aug-03 Aug-02 Aug-03 Dec-01 Jun-04 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Dec-04 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Oct-04 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-05 Oct-04 Aug-04 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Nov-05 Mar-04 Dec-03 Jun-01 Mar-05 Feb-04 Aug-03 Aug-05 Aug-02 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: December 15, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Board Auditor Report BACKGROUND: Monthly report to School Board. RATIONALE: Summary report of activities. FUNDING: No changes. RECOMMENDATION: None. PREPARED BY: Sandy Becker\n:c C: -0 ~ m :..n.. ~ ::,: z 0 i C: -0 0 ~ m Date: To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS December 15, 2005 Board of Directors Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Audit Report - December This is the seventy-fourth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two high schools, two middle school and two elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity and related funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. b) The AAB has forwarded a Booster Club Guidelines Package to be included in official publications of the District after review. Board Policy and Regulation a) The routing of Professional Leave and Travel Requests is being worked on to make the process more efficient and to prepare for the process being automated to improve documentation and provide information for decision making. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Working with Procurement on the use ofbarcode scanners for checking and updating inventory records. This is being done to help more quickly update and check electronic equipment records at the various sites. c) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. Provided training with the Arkansas PT A on financials controls and financial preventive maintenance. Audit Report - December 2005 Page 2 of2 d) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. e) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. f) Developed skills test for financial positions. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) c) d) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Assisting schools to track and reconcile Teacher School Supply Funds. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Assisting LRSD PT A's in financial process training. Reviewing payroll documentation for Time Piece (automated payroll software). Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org.\nc C: -0 ~ m ~ % 8..... i: I .zm.. . DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 December 15, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Technology Report BACKGROUND: Since the last Board meeting the following technology activities have taken place:  Online Agenda Project Boardroom Equipment Pre-wiring and electrical wiring for all equipment has been completed. Laptops have been received and are being configured. Installation of equipment will begin December 19. Online Agenda Application The application installation and configuration on the District servers began the week of December 5. Training for application users will be held January 10---12 at the Technology Center with Board member training being conducted on January 12 at the Administration Building either before or after the Board Agenda meeting. Communication LRSD will communicate rollout of online agenda access via the following:  District website  Article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette  Local educational access channel  Global email to all LRSD staff  Article in newsletter mailed to all LRSD parents in early January This communication will include an overview of the application and instructions as to how to access the board documents.\nz:: C: ~ ?\nm  E-rate Applications for 2006-2007 The E-rate window for 2006-2007 applications opened on December 6. The deadline for filing all applications is February 16. The District's RFP for all telecommunications services will be issued before the winter break. Telecommunications is the major E-rate application that will be filed for next year. Other applications will be the continuation of Edline for secondary schools, maintenance of the existing telephone system, maintenance of the Safari video networks, and network electronics. RATIONALE: To implement the LRSD Technology Plan 2003 - 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept this report. PREPARED BY: John Ruffins, Director, Computer Information Services Lucy Neal, Coordinator, Instructional Technology DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 December 15, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Polley \u0026amp; Regulations Revisions: Policy IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements, with Regulations Regulation - I0-R - Student Schedules Regulation - IHBDA-R2 - Academic Improvement Plan {AIP) Regulation - IHCC-R - Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses, Grades 6-12 Regulation - IKC-R - Class Rankings/ Grade-Point Averages BACKGROUND: Policies and regulations are periodically updated to ensure accuracy and alignment with new state law and regulations. RATIONALE: Due to changes in state law regarding graduation requirements, advanced placement exams, and full day attendance for students in grades nine through twelve (9-12), policy and regulation revisions are needed to ensure compliance. FUNDING: No funding required. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the recommended policy and regulation revisions. PREPARED BY: Dennis Glasgow, Senior Director, Curriculum Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent, Educational Services LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF GENERAL EDUCATION GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS The Little Rock School District Board of Education believes that students should graduate from high school possessing the skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed for responsible citizenship, life-long learning, and productive employment in our modern economy. Programs for post-secondary preparation will be available to equip students for the advanced training that will be needed for the work of the 21 st century. The Little Rock School District will be responsible for providing the educational opportunities and experiences that will enable our students to take full advantage of post-secondary education and employment opportunities available to them after graduation. The District shares with the state of Arkansas the commitment to ensure all students have access to a rigorous curriculum. The District's general graduation requirements meet and exceed the State's adopted Smart Core or Common Core curriculum. Diploma-Earning Options A student may earn a diploma from a Little Rock School District high school in one of four ways. Each has different requirements and different numbers of required units of credit. 1. Diploma from any of the five high schools for completion of the required 26 units. 2. Diploma from any of the five high schools for completion of the Little Rock Scholars curriculum of 28 units, including at least eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses. Hall High School students may take University Studies courses as substitutes for Pre-Advanced Placement and/or Advanced Placement courses. 3. Diploma earned at the Accelerated Learning Center for completion of the 22 units required by the State of Arkansas. 4. Diploma with waived or altered requirements established by an Individual Education Program (IEP) team for a student identified with disabilities. Even though the graduation requirements may be changed by the Board of Education during the time a student is enrolled in high school, the requirements established for a student's graduation class (assuming graduation in four years of high school) are those he/she must meet, even though he/she may require more than four years to earn the necessary number of units. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) Transfer Students NEPN CODE: IKF All transfer students must meet the graduation requirements of the Little Rock School District in order to receive a diploma. The LRSD high schools will accept transfer credits, grades and grade placement for students who previously attended Arkansas high schools that are accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education (See JE for additional information). Students who transfer into a Little Rock School District high school from a home school or an unaccredited high school must attend at least two semesters in order to receive a high school diploma (see IKED and IKED-R) and must attend at least four semesters to be eligible for rank-in-class (See IKC-R). Foreign Exchange students who complete the senior year in good standing may, at the discretion of the principal, participate in the graduation ceremony. Requirement to Attend School for a Full Day Act 675 of 2003 requires students in grades nine through twelve (9-12) to schedule and attend a full school day. Students must enroll in no more than three hundred fifty (350) minutes of planned instructional time each day as a requirement for graduation. Students may be assigned to no more than one (1) block each year or one-half block each semester for study hall or organized tutoring. Enrollment and attendance in vocational-education training courses, college courses, and school work programs may be used to satisfy the requirement of the law. Enrollment and attendance at a post-secondary institution by an eligible student for credit shall be counted by the high school at the following rate: Number of college credits (semester Credit toward the required 30 hour hours) week 1 3 2 6 3 9 4 12 5 15 6 18 7 21 8 24 9 27 10 30 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) ADE Seal NEPN CODE: IKF In order to receive the ADE Seal, students must complete the state's recommended core curriculum with a minimum grade point average of 2.75 (See Standards for Accreditation 14.01 and 14.02). Magnet Program Seal Students who participate in the District's high school magnet programs may meet the magnet curriculum requirements through completion of the designated Career Focus courses established for each magnet. In order to receive a Magnet Seal, magnet students must complete all the requirements of the magnet program. Students transferring into a magnet program after the freshman year may earn a diploma from that high school, but they will not earn the Magnet Seal. Arkansas Scholars Seal (privately sponsored) Arkansas Scholars, a program of the Arkansas business \u0026amp; Education Alliance, is a partnership between the District and the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce's Education Committee. Many local businesses have agreed to recognize the achievement of Arkansas Scholars status as a symbol of high quality education. A special Arkansas Scholars seal will be affixed to the diploma and transcript of a student who meets the following standards established by the Arkansas Scholars program: 1. Earn a grade of \"C\" or above in all courses. 2. Achieve a 95 percent or better attendance record for each of the four years of high school. 3. Complete high school in eight consecutive semesters. 4. Complete successfully at least three units in science, three units in mathematics, three units of social studies, and four units in English. Honors Diploma Seal A special Honors Seal will be affixed to the diploma and transcript of a student who meets the following standards: 1. Completes the units required for the Little Rock Scholars curriculum, which includes and goes beyond the requirements of the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board for unconditional admission to any public two-year or fouryear institution of higher education in Arkansas and which includes, but goes beyond, the requirements for eligibility for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarship. The Little Rock Scholars curriculum also reflects the admission requirements of the most competitive universities in the United States of America. 2. The Little Rock Scholars curriculum requires the successful completion of a minimum of eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses over a four-year period. Hall High School students may take University Studies courses as substitutes for Pre-Advanced Placement and/or Advanced Placement courses. Other approved dual-credit courses 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) offered to LRSD students in collaboration with area colleges/ universities may also be substituted for the Pre-AP or AP requirement. 3. Earns a grade-point-average of at least 3.5. Students designated for valedictory or salutatory recognition must have completed the Little Rock Scholars curriculum. Recognition of Graduates Each high school may design its own traditions to commend and celebrate the achievements of the following sets of graduates: 1. The valedictorian and salutatorian\n2. Students earning an overall average of 3.5 or above\n3. Students earning Magnet Program, Arkansas Scholars, Little Rock Scholars, and/or Honors Diploma Seals\n4. Members of the National Honor Society or similar honors organization\n5. Scholarship recipients\n6. Students with perfect attendance throughout high school\nand 7. Students whose other achievements are worthy of special recognition. Participation in Graduation Ceremony In order to be a participant in the graduation ceremony, the student must be within one unit of completing the graduation requirements and must have paid the tuition for the one-half or one unit to be taken in summer school (or, alternately, in another approved credit-earning program). All high school students and their parents will be informed in writing of this expectation when course lists and graduation requirements are published for the spring registration process. Principals will make a determination of potential graduates at the end of the junior year and each quarter of the students' senior year and inform students and their parents immediately if it is determined that the student is in danger of not graduating. Such students will be advised of all the appropriate credit-earning options, including, but not limited to, evening high school, summer programs, credit recovery. correspondence courses, online courses, credit-by-examination, and placement at the Accelerated Learning Center. Award of Diploma The award of the high school diploma will not be made until all graduation requirements are met. 4\n.,,, ,~ ,- :-o c\u0026gt; ~!\n.-,,z_ ,\u0026gt;...V .\u0026gt;.. ~~ c,-\u0026lt; 0 \u0026lt;5 \u0026gt;,... Z fJ) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) Specific Course Requirements The following table specifies the required courses for graduation for each curriculum area. High School Graduation Requirements Little Rock School District Required, Classes of 2007 and After Reguired1 Arkansas Core Curriculum (Meets Arkansas Smart Core curriculum) Classes of 2007 and After English-4 units English-4 units English I {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English I {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill {ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand English Ill {ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Enalish IV (ESL, Reaular, or AP). Enalish IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communicatlons-1/2 unit Oral Communications-1/2 unit Communications IA -one-half unit Communications IA--one-half unit Mathematics--4 units Mathematics- 4 units Algebra I {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra I or its equivalent* Algebra II {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Geometry or its equivalent* Geometry {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) All math units must build on the base of algebra One or more additional units of advanced mathematics for and geometry knowledge and skills. the completion of four units in grades 9-12. Comparable concurrent credit college courses All students must take a mathematics course in may be substituted where applicable. grade 11 or 12 .  A two-year algebra equivalent or a two-year geometry equivalent may each be counted two units of the four (4) unit requirement. Science-3 units Science-3 units Phisical Science (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Physical Science\nand Biology I\nand One Biologi I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand either additional unit Chemistty I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or Phisics I (ESL Reaular or Pre-AP) Social Studies-3 units Social Studies-3 units Civics {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Civics {ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government {ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Government {ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand World History {ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand World History {ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Reaular, or AP) United States History (ESL, Reaular, or AP) 5 Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education IA Physical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety Health and Safety Fine Arts-1 unit Fine Arts-1/2 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music Career Focus-6 units Career Focus-6 units At least six units from any of the approved Career Six units from any of the approved Career Focus Focus programs to include at least one unit from any programs. of the approved technology courses and one-half unit of English Language Arts {from any English, Journalism, or Communciations course. Modern Grammar (1/2) is stronalv recommended.) Electives-3.5 units A fourth year of both science and social studies is encouraged, as are at least two units of foreign language. AIP classes will gualify as local electives onlv. Total-26 units Total-22 units Little Rock Scholars Curriculum The Board of Education recommends that students elect the challenge of a more rigorous graduation plan than the minimum requirements, including at least eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses (or University Studies courses at Hall High or approved dual-credit courses). Uttle Rock Scholars English--4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand Enalish IV (ESL, Reaular, or AP). Oral Communications IA (1/2 unit). Mathematics --4 units (In grades 9-12) Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One or more additional units of advanced mathematics for the completion of four units in grades 9-12. Sclence--4 units Physical Science (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand either Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or Physics I (ESL, Regular. or Pre-AP) One additional unit Social Studles--4 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand One additional unit Foreign Language -2 units Two units of anv one foreian lanauaae Physical Education -1/2 unit Physical Education IA Health and Safety--1/2 unit Health and Safety 6 !JI 0 \u0026gt;:::l Cm 2\n,o cnn -\u0026lt;\n,o il:m mm z\n,,\n... ~ Fine Arts-1 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music Career Focus~ units Six units from an)1 of the aQQroved Career Focus Qrograms to include one unit from anli'. of the aQQroved technologli'. courses and English Language Arts-1/2 unit (An)1 one-half unit from English, Communications, or Journalism. Modern Grammar Is stronalv encouraaed.) Electlves-1.5 units Total-28 units (Requires completion of eight Pre-AP or AP courses) Reaulred ACC Students Class of 2007 and After Engllsh-i units English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communications IA (1/2 unit). Mathemattcs-i units Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One or more additional units of advanced mathematics for the completion of four units in grades 9-12. Sclence-3 units Physical Science (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand either Chemistrv I (ESL, Reaular, or Pre-AP) or Phvsics I /ESL Reaular or Pre-AP) Social Studles-3 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand United States Historv (ESL, Reaular Pre-AP, or AP) Physical Educatlon-1/2 unit Phvsical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safetv Fine Arts-1/2 unit One unit from art, dance drama, or music Career Focus-6 units Six units from anv of the aooroved Career Focus oroarams. Total-22 units Last Revised: December 15, 2005 Adopted: July 22, 1999 Legal References: A.C.A. 6-15-1101, Standards of Accreditation 9.03, 14.01, 14.02 Cross References: Board of Education Policies and Regulations IKED, JE, IKED-R, IKC-R, and IKEC-R1, and the LRSD Student Handbook 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF-R GENERAL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS English Proficiency To ensure that the maximum number of students acquire proficient-level knowledge and skills as measured on the high school assessments, all schools are encouraged to provide the double-period of English I Workshop for freshmen. The additional instructional time provided by this schedule allows for the development and/or reinforcement of critical knowledge and skill necessary for success. The credit earned in the second period of this program can be counted as an elective to meet graduation requirements. One-half unit could also be used to satisfy the additional one-half unit of English language arts that is required to balance the Communications IA requirement. Modern Grammar, however, is the course the District strongly recommends to satisfy this requirement. English I Pre-AP All schools are also encouraged to provide a double-period English I Workshop Pre-AP so that students have sufficient time and support to develop the critical knowledge and skills necessary for success in advanced courses and in assessments. The credit earned in the second period of this program can be counted as an elective to meet graduation requirements or, as above, as the one-half unit required to balance Communications IA. Pre-AP students are also strongly encouraged to take Modern Grammar. English Prerequisites Each level of required English is a prerequisite for the next level. Students are not generally allowed, therefore, to take two required English courses concurrently. In order to keep students on track to graduate in four years, however, the following exceptions are permitted: 1. A student in grades 9-11 who failed only one semester of the prerequisite English course may enroll concurrently in the one-semester course and in the next full-year English course (for example: a student may concurrently enroll in the second semester of English I and at the same time in English 11). Enrollment in the one semester of the failed course may be during the regular school day, in the evening high school, in an approved correspondence course, or in an approved distance-learning program. !II 0 \u0026gt;=I Cm 2::c (/)(') :\"1\"1:::mC mm z\no: \"\"\n?\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF-R (continued) 2. Senior students who still need credit for either one or two semesters of English Ill may take both English Ill and English IV concurrently. The same options for earning credit outlined in #1 above apply. In no case are these exceptions recommended. They are, however, permitted in order to facilitate a student's on-time graduation. Bible Courses Taken in Private, Parochial, or Home Schools Since the District offers a one-semester course in The Bible As/In Literature, the District will accept a one-half unit in Bible as a transfer course from a private, parochial, or home school. Bible/religion courses taken in other schools in excess of one semester cannot be used to satisfy graduation requirements\nnor will they be calculated as credit or grade points in the calculation of the grade-point average or rank-in-class. (See IKC-R.) English-as-a-Second Language (ESL} ESL students must be scheduled in core classes with ESL-endorsed or ESL-trained teachers, regardless of the school they attend. To facilitate monitoring, ESL students should be scheduled using the ESL course numbers, even if there is not a separate grouping for the course. In such instances, two course numbers are used in one class period with a given teacher. For example, a teacher might be assigned to teach both 051504 ESL English I Workshop and 051014 English I Workshop in one period. (See IHBEA-AD.) If appropriate according to student needs, schools may schedule ESL students into two periods of ESL English at each grade level. Fourth Year of Mathematics Students must complete four units of mathematics in grades 9-12. There is no need for students to accelerate their mathematics in middle school unless they intend to take as many high school mathematics courses as possible. In order to satisfy the requirement of four units of mathematics in grades 9-12, a student may choose one of the following sequences: Algebra I, Algebra II, Statistics or Statistics AP, and Geometry Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, and Transition to College Mathematics Algebra I, Algebra 11, Geometry, and Pre-Calculus Algebra II, Statistics or Statistics AP, Geometry, and Transition to College Mathematics Algebra II, Statistics or Statistics AP, Geometry, and Pre-Calculus LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF-R (continued) Algebra 11, Geometry, Pre-Calculus, and Calculus AB Geometry, Statistics or Statistics AP, Transition to College Mathematics, and Pre-Calculus Geometry, Statistics or Statistics AP, Pre-Calculus, and Calculus AB Geometry, Pre-Calculus, Calculus AB, and Calculus BC Geometry, Statistics or Statistics AP, Pre-Calculus, and Calculus BC Social Studies Courses Only grade 9 students are to be placed in Civics to satisfy the graduation requirement. Students in grades 10-12 should be placed in a full year of United States Government. Students may enroll in either World History (regular, ESL, or Pre-AP) or World History AP to satisfy their graduation requirement. Students may enroll in either United States History (regular, ESL, or Pre-AP) or United States History AP to satisfy their graduation requirement. Physical Education Credit Only one unit of physical education may be taken toward the satisfaction of graduation requirements (one-half required\none-half elective). Athletic practice for competition, whether scheduled during the school day or after school hours, does not earn credit. Physical Education Waivers The one-half unit of required physical education may be waived upon receipt of a statement by a licensed physician that a student is mentally or physically incapable of participating in a regular or modified physical education program\nor when the requirement is contrary to the religious teachings of the student, as indicated in a written statement, signed by a lawful custodian of the student. The one-half unit of Physical Education required for graduation cannot be waived through the procedures outlined in IMP-R. Those waiver procedures pertain solely to the one additional semester of physical training for grade 9 students that are mandated in Act 1748. Foundation Courses The following one-semester \"Foundation Courses\" are prerequisites for most courses in Business Education, Marketing Education, Family and Consumer Science, Career and Technical Education, and courses taught at Metropolitan: Keyboarding (generally LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF-R (continued) required at grade 6), Career Orientation (required at grade 7), and Computer Technology: Introduction. Technology Courses Keyboarding is a prerequisite for all Technology Application courses. A student who completed at least one semester of Keyboarding in middle school has met that prerequisite and need not repeat the course in high school. Keyboarding taken in middle school, however, does not earn high school credit. A student may complete the requirement(s) for Technology Applications from the following list of approved courses: Keyboarding Applications (1/2) Word Processing A (1/2) Word Processing B (1/2) Computer Technology: Introduction (1/2) Multimedia Applications A (1/2) Multimedia Applications B (1/2) Database Management (1/2) Spreadsheet Applications (1/2) Desktop Publishing A (1/2) Desktop Publishing B (1/2) Programming A (1/2) Programming B (1/2) Computer Applications I Computer Applications II Computer Applications Ill Computerized Business Applications (1) Computerized Accounting I (1) Computerized Accounting II (1) Web Site I/Foundations Web Page Design II Travel and Tourism SQL Database Foundations SQL Database Programming Environmental and Spatial Technology (EAST) Lab 1-I1-111-IV (1 each) lnternetworking Technologies I (1) lnternetworking Technologies II (1) Enterprise Information Science (1) Industrial Technology Education (2) Computerized Commercial Art 1-11-111 (Parkview) (1 each) Computerized Commercial Art 1-11-111 (Metro) (3 each) Computer-Aided Drafting 1-11-111 (3 each) Computer Graphics/Printing Technology 1-11-111 (3 each) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF-R (continued) Microcomputer Systems Technology 1-11 (3 each) Introduction to Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Remote Sensing Dual-Credit Technology Application Courses Several college/university courses have been pre-approved for dual credit, provided that the student wishing to take one or more of these courses can be admitted to the college/university program and pays the required tuition and fees (see IHCDA-R). The pre-approved college/university courses and their LRSD equivalents are listed in the High School Curriculum Catalog. In no case may the same course(s) satisfy both Technology Applications requirements and/or the technology courses in one of the areas for Career Focus. However, if a student uses the first three units of credit in a Career and Technical Education program to satisfy the Career Focus requirement, he/she may use the second three-credit course to satisfy the Technology Applications requirement. Career Focus Programs All students are required to complete at least six units in an approved Career Focus Program, whether the student is pursuing the Required Curriculum or the Little Rock Scholars Curriculum prescribed for graduation. Students may not use the same courses to satisfy more than one category of graduation requirements, except as explicitly specified. Last Revised: December 15, 2005 Date: December 7, 2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ID-R STUDENT SCHEDULES Grades 9-12 Students in grades 9-12 must be enrolled in a full day academic program that includes four units (eight courses) each semester in a school with an A/B block schedule or three and one-half units (seven courses) in a school with a seven-period daily schedule. One unit may be placement in a study hall or enrollment as a student assistant/monitor. The principal is authorized to modify this requirement if there are extenuating circumstances. Extenuating circumstances include the following: 1. The student is enrolled in a concurrent program at a college or university. 2. The student is enrolled in a school-sponsored work program. 3. The student has an illness that precludes full-time enrollment. 4. The student demonstrates a hardship of needing to support self and/or family. 5. The student demonstrates other reasons acceptable to the district inclusive of legal matters. Dropping/Adding Courses, Grades 9-12 According to Arkansas Accreditation Standards, a student must be enrolled in a course for at least 60 clock hours in order to receive one-half unit of credit. Students, therefore, are not permitted to change their class schedules after the tenth class day of each semester to ensure that the school is in compliance. The following exceptions to the ten-day rule are permitted, but only with the high school principal's permission: 1. The student is changing from one teacher's class to another teaching the same course. 2. The student is changing from one level of a course to another, such as from the regular level to the Pre-AP level or from Pre-AP to the regular level. 3. The student is exiting an ESL adapted course in order to move into a mainstreamed equivalent course. 4. The student is dropping a course in order to enroll in a study hall or other non-credit period (only one such period is allowed in any one semester). Requirement to Attend School for a Full Day Act 675 of 2003 requires students in grades nine through twelve (9-12) to schedule and attend a full school day. Students must enroll in no more than three hundred fifty (350) minutes of planned instructional time each day as a requirement for graduation. Students may be assigned to no more than one (1) block each year or one-half block each semester for study hall or organized tutoring. Enrollment and attendance in vocational-education training courses, college courses, and school work programs may be used to satisfy the requirement of the law. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ID-R (continued) Enrollment and attendance at a post-secondary institution by an eligible student for credit shall be counted by the high school at the following rate: Number of college credits (semester Credit toward the required 30 hour hours) week 1 3 2 6 3 9 4 12 5 15 6 18 7 21 8 24 9 27 10 30 Grades 6-8 Students must take all courses, including a double period of the Reading/Writing Workshop at each grade level, 6-8, approved by the Board of Education for the required middle school curriculum. Principals may waive the second period of Reading/Writing Workshop at the Pre-AP level at parent request, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the student and without question if the student is performing at the ProficienU Advanced level on the state Benchmark literacy examination. Courses not required by the State of Arkansas may be waived through the waiver process. (See Policy IBA, IBA-R, and IBA-R Exhibit.) Additionally, all grades 6-8 students must participate in at least one hour per week of physical training, including at least three sessions of 20 minutes each. (See IMP-R.) Middle schools may schedule classes seven periods a day, or they may elect to use the A/B block schedule, enabling students to take eight courses every two days. Grades 3-5 All students in grades 3-5 must have instruction in all the areas specified in the Arkansas Accreditation Standards. LRSD time requirements are as follows: English Language Arts/Reading 2  hours daily at grade 3\nAt least 2 hours daily at grades 4-5 Mathematics At least one hour daily Science Daily instruction\nmay be interdisciplinary 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) Social Studies Music or Visual Art Physical Education NEPN CODE: ID-R Daily instruction\nmay be interdisciplinary At least one hour per week At least one hour per week, including no less than 20 minutes three times per week Time requirements that go beyond the Arkansas Accreditation Standards must be observed unless the school applies for and receives a waiver. (See IBA, IBA-R, and IBA-R Exhibit.) Grades PreK-2 All students in grades 3-5 must have instruction in all the areas specified in the Arkansas Accreditation Standards. LRSD time requirements are as follows: English Language Arts/Reading 2  hours daily Mathematics At least one hour daily Science Instruction may be interdisciplinary\nat least Social Studies Music or Visual Art Physical Education every other day, if not every day Instruction may be interdisciplinary\nat least every other day, if not every day At least one hour per week At least one hour per week, including no less than 20 minutes three times per week Time requirements that go beyond the Arkansas Accreditation Standards must be observed unless the school applies for and receives a waiver. (See IBA, IBA-R, and IBA-R Exhibit.) A sample pre-kindergarten daily schedule is attached that meets all licensing and LRSD requirements. Revised: February 24, 2005 Revised: December 18, 2003 Date: October 21 , 1999 Cross References: Board of Education Policies and Regulations, IBA, IBA-R, ID and IMP-R 3 ID-R: Attachment 1 Request for Waiver of School Day Scheduling Requirements Administrative Regulations ID-R Little Rock School District Name of Student- --------------ID Number- ----- Classification I request a waiver from the scheduling requirements in Administrative Regulations ID-R. I understand that in order to be eligible for such a waiver, I must provide proof of one or more of the following extenuating circumstances:  need to take fewer courses due to poor health (verification by a licensed physician is required)\n need to take fewer courses in order to go to work\n need to take fewer courses due to responsibilities to care for a child or other family member\n need to take fewer courses in order to free a period for remedial instruction or for study hall (verification required by an assistant principal, a counselor, and/or a teacher)\n-  need to take fewer courses in order to enroll in a post-secondary course (verification required of application to enroll and admission). Therefore, I request that during the next semester/school year (circle one) I be permitted to enroll in only ___ courses rather than a full day academic program. My proof of extenuating circumstances is either attached through signed statements or follows below: Signature of Student Signature of Parent/Guardian Date Approved/Disapproved (circle one) Signature of Principal Date 4 !II 0 \u0026gt;~ ~~ Cl\u0026gt; 0 -\u0026lt;:io\nl:m mm z:,,\n\"\"'i!:: Sample Pre-K Schedule ID-R: Attachment 2 Time Mondav Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 7:30- Arrival/Centers Arrival/Centers Arrival/Centers Arrival/Centers Arrival/Centers 8:00 Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Science Social Science Social Science Social Science Social Science Social Studies, Art Studies, Art Studies, Art Studies, Art Studies, Art 8:00- Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time 8:15 Explanation and Explanation and Explanation and Explanation and Explanation and Directions for today's Directions for Directions for Directions for Directions for activities todav's activities today's activities today's activities today's activities 8:15- P.E Music Library/Guidance P.E Music 8:45 8:45- Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time 9:30 Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts Choice of Centers Choice of Centers Choice of Centers Choice of Centers Choice of Centers Math, Science Social Math, Science Math, Science Math, Science Math, Science Studies, Art Social Studies, Art Social Studies, Art Social Studies, Art Social Studies, Art 9:30- Outside Play: Outside Play: Outside Play: Outside Play: Outside Play: 10:00 Including Including Including Including Including Gross Motor, Art, and Gross Motor, Art, Gross Motor, Art, Gross Motor, Art, Gross Motor, Art, Dramatic Play and Dramatic Play and Dramatic Play and Dramatic Play and Dramatic Play Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities 10:00- Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time 10:45 Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Hands Hands Hands Hands Hands 10:45- Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch 11 :15 Social Skills Social Skills Social Skills Social Skills Social Skills Language Language Language Language Language Development Development Development Development Development 11 :15- Outside Play Outside Play Outside Play Outside Play Outside Play 11 :45 Gross Motor Gross Motor Gross Motor Gross Motor Gross Motor Art Art Art Art Art Dramatic Play Dramatic Play Dramatic Play Dramatic Plav Dramatic Plav 11 :45- Language Arts/ Language Arts/ Language Arts/ Language Arts/ Language Arts/ 12:15 Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Hands Hands Hands Hands Hands 12:15- Story Time/Rest Story Time/Rest Story Time/Rest Story Time/Rest Story Time/Rest 1:15 Period Period Period Period Period 1 :15- Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time 2:15 Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Science, Social Science, Social Science, Social Science, Social Science, Social Studies, and Art Studies, and Art Studies, and Art Studies, and Art Studies, and Art 2:15- Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time 2:35 Story Story Story Story Story Review of Review of Review of Review of Review of Activities/Closure Activities/Closure Activities/Closure Activities/Closure Activities/Closure Dismissal Dismissal Dismissal Dismissal Dismissal 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHBDA-R2 ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN {AIP) In compliance with Act 2243 of 2005, elementary classroom teachers and both middle and high school teachers of English language arts and mathematics will develop an Academic Improvement Plan (AIP) for each student who  is not performing on grade level (K-2) as measured by developmentally appropriate testing\n is not \"proficient\" on any part of the state's Benchmark examinations in grades three through eight (3-8)  is not scoring \"proficient\" on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, geometry, and/or algebra. Beginning with the state assessments given in the spring of 2005, the following sanctions apply:  A student who does not meet satisfactory pass levels is required to participate in remediation activities outlined in the student's individualized academic improvement plan (AIP).  With regard to benchmark assessments, a student will not be promoted to the next grade until the student is deemed to have participated in an academic improvement plan or the student passes the appropriate benchmark assessment.  With regard to end-of-course assessments, students must participate in remediation activities outlined in the student's individualized academic improvement plan in order to receive credit on . his or her transcript.  In 2006 - 2009 school years, students not scoring \"proficient\" on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, geometry, and/or algebra are required to complete the remediation activities outlined in the student's academic improvement plan (AIP) to receive credit.  Beginning with 2009-2010 school year, a student is required to pass an end of course assessment or to finish and meet a satisfactory pass level on an appropriate alternative exit course in order to receive credit for the course on his or her transcript and in order to graduate. Schools and individual teachers are encouraged to develop plans for additional students who, in their judgment, require remediation or intervention. The Academic Improvement Plan (AIP) will document a student's achievement through District-adopted assessment tools, consideration of personalized education services (special education, English-as-a-Second Language, Title I, gifted programs, etc.), identification of areas of need, specific skills to improve, strategies that will be implemented (see IHBDA-R), and progress. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHBDA-R2 (continued) The Academic Improvement Plan (AIP) and the student's progress toward grade-level or \"proficient\" performance must be shared with parents/guardians at the parent-teacher conferences that are regularly scheduled. If parents do not attend the scheduled parent-teacher conferences, alternate conference times may be scheduled or the form may be mailed. The principal must review and sign all AIPs. The AIP will be used to document parent-teacher conferences. Academic Improvement Plans are to be filed in the students' permanent record folders at the end of each school year or when the student withdraws from the school. Last Revised: December 15, 2005 Date: August 24, 2000 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHCC-R PRE-ADVANCED PLACEMENT AND ADVANCED PLACEMENT COURSES GRADES 6-12 Placement Procedures for Pre-Advanced Placement Courses Students are eligible in Pre-Advanced Placement based on the following established criteria: 1. Proficient in literacy based on the most recent administration of the state benchmark exams: 2. \"B\" average or above in the preceding class 3. Students who earn at least a \"C\" in a Pre-Advanced Placement course may, upon request, be automatically enrolled in the next level course. No teacher recommendation is required. 4. An additional requirement for Pre-Advanced Placement Algebra I is the achievement of an NCE of 64 or greater on the most recent administration of the norm-reference test\nA student may not be excluded from a Pre-Advanced Placement course simply because he/she was not enrolled at that level the previous year if the placement criteria have been met. A waiver placement for Pre-Advanced and Advanced Placement courses will be provided for course enrollment at parent request. Students enrolled in Pre-Advanced and Advanced Placement courses on a waiver basis must maintain a \"C\" average the first nine weeks to remain enrolled in the course(s). Responsibility for Monitoring Enrollment Counselors must routinely check each year to make sure that students with grades of \"A\" or \"B\" in regular-level courses and/or who are scoring at the highest levels on the state's criterion-referenced test or the norm-referenced tests are placed appropriately in Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses. It is the responsibility of both teachers and counselors actively to recruit students into these courses. Accountability and the Quality Index Schools are held accountable for ensuring that increasing percentages of students are enrolled in these rigorous courses. !JI 0 \u0026gt;:::l Cm 2\na u, n ....\na l::m mm z:,,: ....\n!:: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHCC-R (continued) Weighted Grades for Advanced Placement Courses See IKC-R Class Rankings/Grade-Point Average for an explanation of weighted grades for Advanced Placement courses only. B's and C's received in AP courses are to be viewed and treated (but not recorded on the transcript or other official records) as the next higher letter grade when identifying students for the Cum Laude Society, \"All B's\" Honor Roll, and other academic honors and recognition for which the number of A's and/or B's is considered. Advanced Placement Examinations Students are expected to take the applicable AP exam (s). According to the Advanced Placement Rules (3.06) students must take the applicable AP exam to receive weighted credit for the course. Students taking AP courses will receive weighted credit as described in IKC-R Class Rankings/GradePoint Average. Credit will be given for each grading period during the course of the year, but will be retroactively removed from a student's grade for any course in which the student fails to take the applicable AP exam. Students who do not take the AP exam will receive the same numeric value for the grade he/she receives in the course as if it were a non-AP course. The student's score on the exam does not affect the student's grade for the course. Last Revised: December 15, 2005 Date: October 21, 1999 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R CLASS RANKINGS/GRADE-POINT AVERAGES All grades, except those noted in the \"exceptions\" below, earned for high school courses, including excess elective units, will be used in calculating the grade-point average and rank-in-class. Grades included in the computation are as follows: 1. Grades earned for high school courses, whether taken in the regular day, evening school, or summer school program. 2. Grades earned in alternative education programs, including those in LRSD, administered by school districts or other organizations which are accredited through their state department of education or a regional accreditation organization, such as North Central Association of Schools and Colleges (NCA). 3. Transfer grades from accredited schools outside the Little Rock School District. 4. Algebra I (or higher-level mathematics'course) and Level I foreign language (or higher-level foreign language course) taken in eighth grade. 5. Only one (1) unit of physical education. (One-half unit is required\none-half unit may count as an elective. Therefore, only the grades for one unit of physical education will be computed in the grade-point average.) 6. Grades earned in approved concurrent credit college courses offered in cooperation with institutions of higher education {see IKEC-R1 ). 7. Grades earned in summer enrichment programs conducted by institutions of higher education, if the course and credit were approved by the District (see IKEC-R1). 8. Failing grades, unless the courses was retaken and passed (see Exceptions, #1 ). 9. Grade earned for one semester of Driver Education taken from an accredited high school. 10. Grades earned on credit-by-examination to make up failed courses (see IKEC-R3). 11. Passing grade earned on advancement-by-credit for Keyboarding (see IKEC-R6). 12. Grades earned in the District's home-bound programs. 13. Grades earned in approved correspondence courses (see IKEC-R2). 14. Grades earned in approved on-line or distance-learning courses (see IKECR5). 15. Courses in which a student earns an NC (no credit due to excessive absences), unless a course was retaken and passed (see Exceptions, !XI 0 \u0026gt; =l Om 2:,:, u, n -\u0026lt;:,:, !Cm mm z::o: --~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R (continued) #1 ). (Regardless of the student's grade in a course for which he/she earns an NC, the NC, which equals O points, replaces the grade and is used in the calculation of the grade-point average. Exceptions The following grades will not be included in the computation of the grade-point average or rank-in-class: 1. Failing grades (or courses in which students earned an NC for nonattendance) for those courses retaken and passed (effective for all grades 9- 12 students in fall 2001 ), regardless of when the student failed the course). 2. The lower grade of courses retaken to improve understanding and skills (effective for all students re-taking courses previously passed from fall 2004 onward). 3. Grades in courses taken through home schools or in unaccredited schools. 4. Grades on district-administered examinations to determine credit for transfer students from home schools or unaccredited schools. 5. Grades earned in external rehabilitation programs and correctional programs that are not accredited by a state department of education or a regional accreditation organization such as North Central Association or Schools and Colleges (NCA). 6. Courses with grades of \"pass\" or \"fail\" or \"satisfactory\" or \"unsatisfactory.\" 7. Grades in courses that are officially \"dropped\" with the permission of the principal. 8. Grades or credits in below-level or remedial courses. 9. Grades for religion courses taken in non-public schools that are in excess of one-semester equivalent of the LRSD course in Bible as/in Literature. 10. A failing grade earned in Keyboarding in the advancement-by-credit program. 11. Non-credit courses such as Athletics, Office Monitor, Student Council, etc. Re-Enrollment in Courses In order to strengthen understanding and skills needed for advanced study, students may retake a course in which they have previously earned a passing grade of \"D\" or \"C.\" Both the original entry and the retaken entry will be shown on the transcript but only the higher grade symbol will be shown and figured in the calculation of the grade point average. The lower grade symbol will be replaced with the grade symbol \"RT\" for retaken. A student may make up a failed course, as well as a course in which a student earned an NC, in several ways-retake the course during the regular day, evening high school, credit recovery or summer program\nearn credit for a failed course through credit-by- 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R (continued) examination\nand/or retake the failed course through correspondence, on-line, or distance learning. Both the failed entry and the retaken entry will be shown on the transcript but only the passing grade symbol will be shown and figured in the calculation of the grade point average. The failing grade symbol will be replaced with the grade symbol \"RT\" for retaken. A student retaking a course he/she failed due to excessive absences does not have the option of credit-by-examination. A student retaking a course which he/she previously passed does not have the option of summer school or credit-by-examination. Assessment of Transcripts for Transfer Students Transcripts are official records of the culmination of each student's educational experience on the secondary level. Therefore, it is vital that all final grades earned in grades 6-12 be shown in the transcript history, regardless of where they were earned. This is absolutely essential in grades 9-12 in order for cumulative GPA's, credits, and rankings to be accurate. It is the responsibility of the transferring student and his/her parent/guardian to provide the necessary releases, clearances, and information required to obtain an official transcript from the previous school. Upon the receipt of the official transcript, all final grades indicated on that transcript should be transferred exactly as shown to the Little Rock School District's transcript history. The course descriptions shown for each final grade should also be entered as shown. When possible the name of the school should be shown above the grades. Only final grades are entered in the transcript history. Transfer or interim grades or withdrawal grades from other schools should not be entered unless they are final grades. The LRSD uses letter grades, not percentages on transcripts. If the official transcript received from another school shows only percentages, the percentage should be converted to a letter grade using the key provided by the previous school. If no conversion key is provided or obtainable, the percentages shown will be converted to the letter grade indicated on the Arkansas State Grading Scale. Transfers from Home Schools and/or Unaccredited Schools Students who transfer into a Little Rock School District from home schools or schools that are not accredited through a state department of education or a regional accreditation organization such as North Central Association of Schools and Colleges (NCA) must attend the accredited high school for a minimum of four semesters in order to be eligible for rank-in-class calculations. Only the courses taken at the accredited high school will be used in calculating the grade-point average. 3 !II 0 \u0026gt;:::l Om 2::c \"-\u0026lt;':n:c il:m mm Z:0: \"\"'i!:'i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R (continued) Transfer Students' Weighted Grades Weights assigned to grades from other districts or schools for courses that are not Advanced Placement courses, or \"honors\" courses approved for that school district by the Arkansas Department of Education, or dual high school and college credit courses approved by the Arkansas Department of Education for weighted-grade status will not be honored by any LRSD high school in the calculation of the grade-point average or rank-in-class. (See Arkansas Rules and Regulations on \"Uniform Grading Scales for Public Secondary Schools.) Transfer Students from Foreign Schools Foreign exchange students not seeking a diploma from an LRSD high school will not be eligible for rank-in-class. Computing the Grade-Point Average and Rank-in-Class In determining the grade-point average and rank-in-class, the following scale will be used. Also, grades earned in concurrent credit college courses, unless they have been approved for weighted-grade or honors status by the Arkansas Department of Education, will be assigned the following numeric values when such courses are used to compute a student's grade-point average. A= B= C= D= F= NC= 90-100 = 80-89 = 70-79 = 60-69 = 59 and below = 4 points 3 points 2 points 1 point O points 0 points The following scale will be used for Advanced Placement courses, as well as for dual credit courses approved by the Arkansas Department of Education for weighted-grade status, whether taken in LRSD or other districts. It will also be used for \"honors\" courses approved by the Arkansas Department of Education for students who have transferred in from other districts. (See ''Transfer Students' Weighted Grades\" above.) A= B= C= D= F= NC= 90-100 = 80-89 = 70-79 = 60-69 = 59 and below = 5 points 4 points 3 points 2 points O points 0 points 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R (continued) Rank-in-Class The student's rank-in-class will be computed each year in grades 9 and 10 and each semester in grades 11 and 12 and will be available upon request for information to the students and to his/her parent(s)/guardian(s). Although tentative ranking of seniors is done at the end of the seventh semester for college admission, scholarship applications, and/or recognition programs conducted before graduation, the final ranking of seniors will be computed at the end of the eighth semester when semester grades are reported. When a seventh-semester rank-in-class is provided by a Little Rock School District high school official, the high school must include the information that the final rank in class is established at the end of the eighth semester. Release of Information Rank-in-class information will be released to appropriate school, college, or university personnel or to others only at the request or consent of the student, or the parent if the student is a minor, or in response to a judicial order or pursuant to any lawfully issued subpoena. Senior Honors Ties in Rank-in-Class (Effective for the Classes of 2000, 2001, and 2002) In the event two or more students tie for valedictory or salutatory honors, both (or more) students will receive equal recognition. For purposes of award of any valedictory scholarship following the eighth-semester calculations of rank-incl. ass, the student with the highest total number of grade points will be declared the valedictorian. If a valedictory scholarship is awarded prior to the end of the eighth semester, then the seventh semester calculations will be used to make the determination. Honors Recognition In order to be eligible for honors recognition at graduation, the graduating student must have completed the \"Recommended Curriculum,\" successfully completed at least eight advanced courses (Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and/or University Studies courses)\nand achieved a grade-point average of at least 3.5 (see IKF.). Each high school will establish its own traditions for recognizing and awarding honors graduates and their parents. 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R (continued) Definition: Unaccredited School An unaccredited school is a school that has not earned accreditation status by a state department of education or through a regional accreditation organization, such as North Central Association of Schools and Colleges. Credits from home schools and/or unaccredited schools are generally not transferable to accredited schools except through credit-by-examination programs. Definition: Concurrent Credit College Courses Concurrent credit college courses are courses that are offered and taught under the direction of an accredited institution of higher education. Students receive both high school and college credit for successful completion. Implementation Date The provisions of these regulations are effective for the class of 2000, except that the regulations on Senior Honors are effective for the class of 2003. (See also IKF.) Notification These regulations will be published annually in the High School Course Selections publication. Last Revised: December 15, 2005 Date: October 21, 1999 Cross References: Board of Education Policy IKC, Administrative Regulations IKEC-R1 through IKEC-R6, Board of Education Policy IKF and Arkansas Uniform Grading Scales for Public Secondary Schools 6 DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 December 15, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Proposed Changes in the Middle and High School Curriculum Programs for 2006-2007 BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Board Policy IG, Curriculum Development, Adoption, and Review, and Board Regulation IGE-R2, Approval of New Courses, proposed new courses are to be submitted to the Board for approval in December of each year. RATIONALE: In response to the diverse needs of our students as well as our commitment to continuous cultivation of their growth, courses were amended, deleted, and developed so that our students will continue to have a comprehensive and rigorous program of studies. FUNDING (Discussed under Impact Statements in Table that follows): RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the recommended course additions and changes. PREPARED BY: Dennis Glasgow, Senior Director, Curriculum Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent, Educational Services Proposed Middle School Course Additions, Deletions and Changes: Action School Course Proposed Rationale Impact Statement All Middle Pre-Algebra Addition Seventh and eighth grade Algebra I This would replace the Schools students miss the benefit of seventh math that students would and/or eighth grade mathematics. normally take the year Since they must take the seventh and before they take Algebra I. eighth grade Benchmark Exams, this No impact on FTE's or course will compact the essential Pre- budget. Algebra skills into one course that students will take the year before taking Algebra I Proposed High School Course Additions, Deletions and Changes: Action School Course Proposed Rationale Impact Statement Parkview AP Music Addition The addition of this course will AP courses are Theory V, 2 meet the needs of advanced automatically approved by semesters students who take AP Music ADE: thus, we do not Theory IV during the junior year. have to seek approval. No impact on FTE's, master schedule, or budget since the AP Music IV and proposed AP Music V students will be in the same class with the same teacher. Parkview Career Addition This course is required to This Is a Workforce Communicatio complete a program of study in Education course\nthus, ns,2 AudioNisual and Performing Arts no additional approval semesters and Communications. needed from ADE. Career-Tech and Carl Perkins will fund. No additional FTEs are reauired. Dunbar Global Addition\nDunbar is an International A new (or reinstated Studies, 2 however, the Studies magnet but has not had course) will have some semesters course was a Global Studies course since impact on the master previously the original teacher of Global schedule and on the offered Studies left. A qualified teacher distribution of core and is now available. elective teachers. Books and materials will be needed. Hall STRIVE Addition This is a computer-based This Is a Workforce delivery system that integrates Education course\nNo basic academic skills to prepare additional FTE required\nstudents for vocational skills funded through Career-training and entry level jobs. Tech and Carl Perkins Content of reading and math budgets. lessons is selected on the basis of each student's selection of a vocational interest from 15 available options and is specifically geared toward special populations. Action School Course Proposed All High 031015 Change in Schools Programming course A, 1 semester prerequisites All High 031023 Change in Schools Programming course B, 1 semester prerequisites Fair Senior Addition Seminar, 2 semesters All High Computer Addition Schools Applications (CA) I, 11,111, 1 semester Fair and 492580 SQL Addition Central (Structural Query Language) Database Fundamentals , 1 semester Fair and 492590 SQL Addition Central (Structural Query Language) Database Programming, 1 semester Rationale Current 11rereguisites: Keyboarding Pro11osed 11rereguisites: Keyboarding and Geometry (stronolv recommended) Current 11rereguisites: Keyboarding and Programming A Pro112sed 11rereguisites: Keyboarding and Geometry (strongly recommended) The course content is intended to facilitate students' transition from school to work. This capstone course will infuse the internship, senior project, career guidance, higher education exploration, electronic portfolio, and SCANS skills study. This is a self-paced course that allows students to move through two or all three courses within a semester. A basic programming course is being offered currently in the high schools. This first semester course offers highly advanced programming language and organizational structure training. A basic programming course is being offered currently in the high schools. This second semester course offers highly advanced programming language and organizational structure training. Impact Statement None None This is a Workforce Education course\nthus no additional approval is needed from ADE. No additional FTEs are needed. Career and Technical Ed will fund course materials and training. Thi! 1! a W51rkforce ~!!U!,!tlQn !.21.!rst: thus, no additional approval is needed from ADE. can be taught by any business education teacher already on the staff of the high schools\nit is strongly recommended by HSTW. No additional staff is needed\ncourse will be funded through career-Tech and car1 Perilins budget. This Is a Workforce Education course\nNo additional FTEs are needed. The goals and objectives are being infused into an existing course as a pilot. Course will be funded through Career-Tech and Car1 Perkins budoet. This Is !! W51rkforce E!!ucati2n cou!Je\nNo additional FTEs are needed. The goals and objectives are being infused into an existing course as a pilot. Course will be funded through career- Tech and car1 Perilins budget. !JI 0  :::1 Cm 2\"' U\u0026gt; (\") -4:,0 !l:m mm z:,,: '\"\"i!!: Action School Course Proposed Rationale Impact Statement Parkview 123400 Music Change an The course is a pre-requisite for All we would need to do is Theory Ill, 2 existing course to AP Music theory IV. The add Pre-AP label to the Semesters add the Pre-AP curriculum meets the rigor that existing course. Label should be in a Pre-AP Course All High 033001 Change in Current 12rereguisites: None Schools Multimedia course Word Processing A and B or Applications in prerequisites Computerized Business Business A, I Applications and Desktop semester Publishing A Proi:1osed 12rereguisites: Word Processing I or Computerized Business Applications or CA I, II, 111, and Desktop Publishing A All High 033013 Change in Current 12rereguisites: None Schools Multimedia course Multimedia Applications in Applications in prerequisites Business A Business B, 1 Proi:1osed 12rereguisites: semester Multimedia Applications A All High 172135 Travel Change in title Current title and 12rereguisite: None Schools and Tourism, and in Travel and Tourism 1 semester prerequisites Keyboarding Proi:1osed title and 12rereguisite: Introduction to Travel and Tourism Word Processing A or Computerized Business Applications or CA I, 11, Ill All High 031006 Change in Current i:1rereguisite: None Schools Computerized prerequisite Word Processing A Business Pro1:12sed i:1rereguisite: Applications, 2 Keyboarding semesters All High 172103 Change in content Current descri11tion: Workplace None Schools Workplace and/or skills taught readiness teaches the skills and Readiness, 1 or in the course attributes needed to succeed in the semester description changing workplace through video, interactive videodisc, computer, and print lessons. The course is divided into three units: problem-solving, teamwork, and self-management. Pro11osed descri11tion: Workplace Readiness is a one-semester course offered in grades 10-12. It focuses on problem solving, teamwork, communication skills, the use of technology, and self-management. The course is divided into five units: resources, interpersonal skills, information, systems, and technoloav. All High 031017 Desktop Change in Current 11rereguisites: None Schools Publishing A, 1 prerequisites Word Processing A and B or semester Computerized Business Applications Pro122sed 11rereguisites: Word Processing A or Computerized Business Annlications or CA I, II Action School Course Proposed All High 032017 Desktop Change in Schools Publishing B, 1 prerequisites semester All High AIP Pre- Addition Schools Algebra All High AIP Algebra I Addition Schools All High AIP Geometry Addition Schools All High AIP Eleventh Addition Schools Grade Literacy Action School Course Proposed Hall Web Site I- Addition Foundations, 1 semester Hall Web Page Addition Design II-Site Designer, 1 semester Rationale Qyrr~nt 12rereguisites: Keyboarding and Desktop Publishing A PrQllQSed 12reregui~ites: Desktoo Publishina A Local credit course to remediate students who are not proficient on the Eighth Grade Math Benchmark Exam. Local credit course to remediate students who are not proficient on the Algebra I EOC Exam. Local credit course to remediate students who are not proficient on the Geometry EOC Exam. Local credit course to remediate students who are not proficient on the Literacy EOC Exam. Rationale Some web design is infused into our Word Processing Course\nhowever, this course will provide enough training to allow students to become nationally certified in Webmaster Desian. Some web design is infused into our Word Processing Course\nhowever, this course will provide enough training to allow students to become nationally certified in Webmaster Desian. Impact Statement None Increase in math FTEs will be required\npossible decrease in FTEs for elective courses\nNovaNET or Plato e-learning system will be utilized for the course. Increase in math FTEs will be required\npossible decrease in FTEs for elective courses\nNovaNET or Plato e-learning system will be utilized for the course. Increase in math FTEs will be required\npossible decrease in FTEs for elective courses\nNovaNET or Plato e-learning system will be utilized for the course. Increase in literacy FTEs will be required\npossible decrease in FTEs for elective courses\nNovaNET or Plato e-learning system will be utilized for the course. Impact Statement This Is a Workforce Education course\nno additional FTE is needed. Career-Tech and Car1 Perkins budget will fund. This Is a Workforce Education course\nno additional FTE is needed. Career-Tech and Car1 Perkins budget will fund. !II 0 \u0026gt;=I ~~ cnn ....\no l::m mm z\n:,,\n\"\"\"'\n!:\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: December 15, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Elementary Textbook Adoption Timeline Extension BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Board Regulation IJ-R 1, Textbook Adoptions, the textbook adoption selection for elementary must be approved by the Board of Directors at the December board meeting. However, due to extenuating circumstances this timeline can not be met. RATIONALE: The math textbooks were approved by the State Board in late September and the Commissioner's memo announcing the textbook list was electronically sent to school districts on October 18. Additionally, the sponsored ADE Book Caravan, which is the start of the process for districts, was held on November 14. Consequently, the local adoption process began later than originally intended. The textbook adoption committee needs ample time to conduct a comprehensive examination and evaluation of each of the six state recommended textbooks. As a result of the late start, the committee is unable to complete its charge to meet the established December deadline. An extension of the timeline would afford the committee sufficient time to complete its task and bring a recommendation to the Board in February. FUNDING: NIA RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Education approve the timeline extension. PREPARED BY: Dr. Olivine Roberts !I' 0 \u0026gt;=I Cm 2\na en n ....\na :11:m mm z\no: .... j!:'\n.!.I,' z \u0026gt;z (\") ~ en DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 December 15, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Guiding Principles and Goals BACKGROUND: An organizational audit completed in March 2005 by consultants Dr. Dennis Smith and Mr. Robert Klempen provided the Little Rock School District with an outline of best practices used by successful school districts around the country. Among the findings was the need for the LRSD to develop a smaller and more responsive central administration. An administrative reorganization began on July 1, 2005 and eliminated more than 100 positions. The reorganization enabled the district to more sharply focus on its schools, the hub of its core business, and to establish administrative line authority to run the schools and staff authority to support them. The final phase of the district restructuring began in late July 2005 as the Board sought to link its core beliefs, as detailed in the 2003 LRSD Strategic Plan, to employee performance. By October 2005, the Board and the district's senior administrative team had developed a series of guiding principles and measurable goals. These principles and goals, which are rooted in the 2003 LRSD Strategic Plan, are the heart of the district's new employee performance acco.untability system. RATIONALE: The guiding principles and measurable goals clearly define the educational expectations of the Board and the community at large. The net result is an accountability system that will enable the Board and the community to gauge how well the district is performing against expectations. FUNDING: This recommendation carries no direct financial implications. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the guiding principles and measurable goals that accompany this agenda item.  !ID 0 \u0026gt;::::l Om l:\n.o en n ....\no l:m mm z\n,,: .... ii!: !.I.D, z \u0026gt;z n ~ en PREPARED BY: Joseph Mittiga Government/Public Affairs Officer LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously, and face the future as productive contributing citizens. This mission is accomplished though open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. GUIDING PRINCIPLE ONE We expect all students to reach their full potential related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship and service to others. Goal A: Goal B: GoalC: Students will demonstrate continued and improved academic achievement. Students will be provided a comprehensive and rigorous curriculum. Students will demonstrate positive citizenship and service to others. GUIDING PRINCIPLE TWO We effectively manage resources in order to achieve the district's mission. Goal A: Goal B: GoalC: District resources will be allocated in an equitable manner. A positive fund balance will be maintained to ensure the fiscal solvency of the district. District facilities will be operated in an efficient and effective manner. GUIDING PRINCIPLE THREE We encourage parents to be knowledgeable about and participate in their child's educational program. Goal A: Goal B: GoalC: The district will support outreach programs that engage parents in their child's education. Parents will feel welcome at school. Staff will assist parents in accessing those school resources necessary to support their child's education. !JI 0 \u0026gt;::::1 Cm 2\nu en n ....\nu l:m mm z\n,,: \"\"\n!:\ni\"' .!J.,I z  ~ ~ en GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOUR We are committed to providing a safe and orderly learning environment. Goal A: Goal B: GoalC: Schools will promote a safe learning environment. School facilities will be clean, secure and well maintained. Students will treat each other with respect and demonstrate socially acceptable behavior. GUIDING PRINCIPLE FIVE We expect all employees to be responsible for providing or supporting quality educational experiences for all students. Goal A: A qualified and well-trained staff will provide an effective and supportive environment for students. GUIDING PRINCIPLE SIX We are committed to building effective community partnerships. Goal A: Meaningful private and public relationships will be established and the community will feel valued and recognized for its contributions. Goal B: Schools will establish partnerships to address local social and economic issues. DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 December 15, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Otter Creek Attendance Zone Adjustments to Zone Blocks 3635, 3654, and 3655 BACKGROUND: Enrollment data and facility operations for Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Watson and Otter Creek Elementary Schools' attendance zones reveal a disparity in enrollments and a need to maximize the capacity of Mabelvale Elementary. The demolition of the Cloverdale Elementary facility due to the structural failure of the foundation required the relocation of those students to other elementary locations throughout the LRSD district. Watson and Mabelvale Elementary Schools were the recipients of the majority of students from Cloverdale Elementary. Otter Creek Elementary receives a total of 103 students from the Otter Creek attendance zone blocks 3635, 3654 and 3655, which are located in the northeast quadrant of the Mabelvale Elementary area. The present enrollment at Otter Creek Elementary is 580 students which is 43 students over the capacity of 537 students\na total of four portable classrooms are currently in use at Otter Creek. Mabelvale and Watson are under utilized with 365 students enrolled at Mabelvale, approximately 78 students under capacity\nWatson Elementary has an enrollment of 522 students, approximately 69 students under capacity. If no modifications are made to the current Otter Creek attendance zones, an additional portable will be required on the Otter Creek Elementary campus for the 2006-2007 school year. To reduce the need for additional classrooms at Otter Creek Elementary and increase the utilization of Mabelvale Elementary, it is recommended that we remove the attendance zone blocks of 3635, 3654 and 3655 from the Otter Creek Elementary attendance zone and incorporate those zone blocks into the Mabelvale Elementary attendance zone. .!.l,l z \u0026gt;z C') ~ u, We propose that all students presently attending Otter Creek Elementary from the zone blocks of 3635, 3654 and 3655 be \"grandfathered\" and allowed to finish their elementary education at Otter Creek Elementary. All new registrants and Pre-K students from zone blocks 3635, 3654 and 3655 would be assigned to Mabelvale Elementary. RATIONALE: The operational efficiency of district facilities and building capacities are reviewed annually prior to student registration in January. In addition, the district's Comprehensive Planning Study (COPS) Committee, will continue to review attendance and facilities needs and will report to the board as needed. The need to reduce the use of portables on our school campuses whenever possible by aligning the school capacities, attendance zones, and student enrollment lessens overall operational costs to the LRSD. Additional students housed in portables on a school campus negatively impact the school's infrastructure and impact operations of the cafeteria, media center, restrooms and parking. Detailed enrollment and capacity of the elementary schools in the southwest quadrant of the district are provided for your review. FUNDING: NIA RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that zone blocks 3635, 3654, and 3655 be transferred from the Otter Creek attendance zone to the Mabelvale Elementary attendance zone. Board action at this time will allow sufficient notification to parents and the community prior to student registration in January 2006. It should be emphasized that this action takes into consideration all students presently attending Otter Creek Elementary and provisions to allow their attendance through the end of their elementary school years. PREPARED BY: Hugh Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District Enrollment Data (P4 - 5th Grade) October 1, 2005 Enrollment Black% Cloverdale 113 75.2 Mabel vale 338 76 Otter Creek 580 64.5 Watson 458 91.5 November 28, 2005 ~ .~ ....\n,:, Elementarv:Schools . r,.~\\ Enrollment Black% Cloverdale 0 0 Mabel vale 365 78.1 Otter Creek 580 65.0 Watson 522 88.1 Relocated Cloverdale Students: Mabel vale Increase Watson Increase + 27 +63 + 90 (Student Increase) -.. .,. ,White% 6.19 18.6 14.8 9.2 26.5 8.9 1.5 6.98 ,.. . :t White% Other %  0 0 11 10.9 21.4 13.6 1.5 10.3 ~ Opportunities Elsewhere ~ :c ! ~\n,o z~ C) 0 ~!!? \u0026gt;\u0026lt; z 5C, \n,o \u0026gt;m ~~ 0\n,o C:\n,i: ~(I\u0026gt; Im:: -z, .?.I, ,z. z C') ~ (I\u0026gt; Current School Gender Not currently attending F LRSD M Total F BALE M Total F BASELINE M Total F BOOKER M Total F BRADY M Total F CARVER M Total F CHICOT M Total F DODD M Total F FAIR PARK M Total F GIBBS M Total F KING M Total F MABELVALE ELEM M Total F MEADOWCLIFF M Total F OTTER CREEK M Total F WATSON M Total F WOODRUFF M Total F TOTAL M Total Little Rock School District Current School Attendance for Zone Blocks (3635, 3654 and 3655) Black White Hispanic Asian 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 8 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 39 1 9 0 41 2 6 0 80 3 15 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 52 1 12 0 67 4 8 0 119 5 20 0 CIS 12/1/05 Native Am Other Total 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 50 1 3 53 1 4 103 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 67 1 4 84 1 6 151 Little Rock School District Student Counts by Grade, Race, and Gender for Selected Zone Blocks for Otter Creek Attendance Grade Gender Black White Hispanic Asian Native Am Zone Other 01 F 7 0 0 0 0 0 M 4 0 0 0 0 2 02 F 2 0 1 0 0 0 M 6 0 0 0 0 0 03 F 6 0 2 0 0 0 3635 M 9 0 0 0 0 0 04 F 2 0 0 0 0 0 M 7 0 0 0 0 1 K F 4 0 0 0 0 0 M 5 0 1 0 0 0 P4 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 2 0 1 0 0 0 01 F 4 0 0 0 0 1 M 4 1 2 0 0 0 02 F 5 0 5 0 0 1 M 5 0 0 0 0 1 03 F 6 0 2 0 0 0 3654 M 5 1 1 0 1 0 04 F 6 0 0 0 0 0 M 6 0 2 0 0 0 K F 2 0 2 0 0 0 M 6 0 1 0 0 0 P4 F 5 0 0 0 0 0 M 3 1 0 0 0 0 01 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 1 1 0 0 0 0 02 F 0 1 0 0 0 0 M 3 0 0 0 0 0 03 F 1 0 0 0 0 0 3655 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 F 1 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 K F 1 0 0 0 0 0 M 1 0 0 0 0 0 P4 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 11 0 0 0 0 1 01 M 9 2 2 0 0 2 Total 20 2 2 0 0 3 F 7 1 6 0 0 1 02 M 14 0 0 0 0 1 Total 21 1 6 0 0 2 F 13 0 4 0 0 0 03 M 14 1 1 0 1 0 Total 27 1 5 0 1 0 F 9 0 0 0 0 0 Total 04 M 13 0 2 0 0 1 Total 22 0 2 0 0 1 F 7 0 2 0 0 0 K M 12 0 2 0 0 0 Total 19 0 4 0 0 0 F 5 0 0 0 0 0 P4 M 5 1 1 0 0 0 Total 10 1 1 0 0 0 Total F 52 1 12 0 0 2 M 67 4 8 0 1 4 Total 119 5 20 0 1 6 as of 11-18--05 Total 7 6 3 6 8 9 2 8 4 6 0 3 5 7 11 6 8 8 6 8 4 7 5 4 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 12 15 27 15 15 30 17 17 34 9 16 25 9 14 23 5 7 12 67 84 151 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\n::: !..l,l z z\u0026gt; n 1: \"' 2004-2005 Capacities SCHOOL Central HS Fair HS Hal/HS McClellan HS Parkview Mag. HS Sub-Total Cloverdale Middle Dunbar Middle Forest Heights Middle Henderson Middle Mabe/vale Middle Mann Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Sub-Total Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbriaht Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson Kirn, Mabe/vale McDennott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Riqhtse/1 Rockefeller Romine Steohens Terry Wakefield Washinaton Watson WestemHills Williams Wilson Woodruff Sub-Total Gr1nd Total Little Rock School District 20CU-2005 Capacities Capacity 2276 (12-03) 1200 1754 (12-03) 1440 *includes annex 1200 7870 885 (12-03) 780 780 960 681 (12-03) 900 750 750 6486 488 (12-03) 360 645 409 556 509 489 271 304 400 532 565 (8-17-04) 358 321 471 715 443 . 453 358 283 537 (12-03) 350 296 481 * P1 - 5th Grade 507 (12-03) 646 575  includes portables 489  dental clinic + 18 836 591 (12-03) 320 490 340 314 15702 30053 12/6/2005 DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 December 15, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes BACKGROUND: None RATIONALE: To staff allocated positions within the District FUNDING: Operating Fund RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.C.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) consecutive years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2005 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 8, 2005 for EYE are considered intern teachers. PREPARED BY: David ~~i. Senior Director of Human Resources\n\u0026gt;=\u0026lt; Personnel Changes Page2 December 15, 2005 NAME START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE Resignations/Terminations Certified Emploll:ees Blackwell, Willie Chemistry/ 8-13-97 Reason: Accepted another MCCLELLAN 11-17-05 position Bufford, Sherrill Special Education/ 8-13-97 Reason: Accepted another FULBRIGHT 12-9-05 position Riley, Leah Elementary I/ 9-15-69 Reason: Retired BRADY 12-30-05 New Certified Emploll:ees Barlett, Denise Art/ 11-14-05 HENDERSON Mascoe, Ryan Mathematics/ 10-13-05 CENTRAL Mothershed, Michelle Elementary V/ 11-16-05 FRANKLIN Scogins, Sue Mathematics/ 11-14-05 FOREST HEIGHTS Williams, Lula Mathematics/ 10-4-05 HALL Zavalza, Margarita Spanish/ 11-8-05 CENTRAL/MCCLELLAN SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 6-14 51845.00 TCH925 4-15 49842.00 SPE925 6-21 60562.00 TCH925 2-08 38666.00 TCH925 annual 25374.00 prorated 4-01 34747.00 TCH925 annual 26784.15 prorated 4-06 39392.00 TCH925 annual 25440.67 prorated 2-16 32129.85 TCH925 annual 21085.21 prorated 1-09 38318.00 TCH925 annual 30933.80 prorated 1-11 40640.00 TCH925 annual 27516.67 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 December15,2005 ~ :z: !~\n,o' -z,n... c,o ~!:!? )\u0026lt;Z START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL =C) =-\n,o CLASS SALARY  m NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE ~~ O\n,o c\n., ~\"' Zavalza, Reynaldo Spanish/ 11-8-05 4-18 53326.00 !mI: MCCLELLAN TCH925 annual ~ 36106.15 prorated Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Em(!loyees Banks, Lorice Instructional Aide/ 8-8-03 33-14 15249.00 Reason: Job abandonment KING 10-25-05 INA925 Dawson, Bruce CARE/ 4-22-05 4-01 6.25 Reason: None given CARE 11-15-05 CARE per hour Deadmon, Carolyn Custodian/ 9-2-91 31-16 22752.00 Reason: Retired MCDERMOTT 11-15-05 CUS12 Eaton, Douglas Director/ 6-3-91 75-20 95808.00 Reason: Accepted another SCHOOL 12-15-05 ADN12 position CONSTRUCTION Fields, Janice CARE/ 8-19-05 1-08 8.08 Reason: None given CARE 11-15-05 CARE per hour Harrison, Jami CARE/ 8-19-05 3-08 8.89 Reason: None given CARE 11-15-05 CARE per hour Milam, Lisa CARE/ 1-24-05 1-04 7.44 Reason: None given CARE 11-30-05 CARE per hour Moreland-Adams, Robbie Nurse/ 11-11-04 52-07 32712.00 ?\u0026lt; Reason: None Given FRANKLIN 12-21-05 NURSES .., z \u0026gt; \u0026gt;~ Turner, Jr., Louis Instruction Aide/ 8-16-05 33-16 16192.00  m 8 en Reason: Resigned without CHICOT 11-15-05 INA925 zc )J,\"0 notice\n--\u0026lt;~ c3 Wilson, Robert Custodian/ 8-19-97 31-13 20904.00 \"'~ ~ Reason: Terminated FULBRIGHT 12-16-05 CUS12 New Non-Certified Em(!loyees Cole, Christopher Analyst I/ 11-28-05 60-10 45420.00 .!.I,' INFORMATION AN12 annual z \u0026gt; SERVICES 26478.89 z (') prorated ~ \"' Personnel Changes Page4 December 15, 2005 NAME Collins, Carl Davis, Vertie Deane, Christy Dillard, Brandy Duncan, Mineka Griffith, Keysha Howard, Amy Janss, Gloria Johnson, Tonya Lovett, Frederick --- -- - - -- ---------- - . START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY Painter/ 11-21-05 49-07 29904.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; MAINT annual OPERATIONS 17815.15 prorated Instructional Aide/ 11-7-05 33-09 13140.00 OTTER CREEK INA925 annual 9162.49 prorated Instructional Aide/ 11-28-05 33-16 16192.00 TERRY INA925 annual 10240.35 prorated Security Officer/ 10-21-05 36-10 15536.00 HALL SOFR9 annual 11609.32 prorated CARE/ 11-7-05 3-03 8.10 CARE CARE per hour CARE/ 8-29-05 3-17 10.41 CARE CARE per hour Instructional Aide/ 11-28-05 33-16 16192.00 TERRY INA925 annual 10240.35 prorated Instructional Aide/ 11-28-05 33-16 16192.00 BRADY INA925 annual 10240.35 prorated CARE/ 12-05-05 3-03 8.10 CARE CARE per hour Instructional Aide/ 11-14-05 33-16 16192.00 FRANKLIN INA925 annual 10853.02 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 December 15, 2005 NAME McKnight, Devon Sullivan, Patricia Williams, Cynfranesia Buckelew, Richard START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY Analyst I/ 11-21-05 60-10 45420.00 COMPUTER AN12 annual INFORMATION 27058.72 SERVICES prorated Child Nutrition/ 11-21-05 3-01 9401.00 FULBRIGHT FSH550 annual 6216.79 prorated Custodian/ 11-15-05 31-01 5718.50 CARVER CUS925 annual 3822.69 prorated Non-Certified Promotions Promoted from Electrician Trade Specialist to Electrician Foreman .!J,,i z  zn\nE \"' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: December 15, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District receives donations from businesses and individuals on a regular basis. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District that donations are not formally accepted until they are approved by the Board of Directors. RATIONALE: District policy states that, in order to maintain the centralized fixed asset property accounting system, all property donation requests are forwarded to the Director of Procurement. The Procurement Department forwards the requests, along with the appropriate recommendations, to the Board of Directors for acceptance and approval. In order for proper recognition and appreciation to be conveyed to the donor, donor's name and current mailing address should be included in the donation memo. FUNDING: None RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached donation requests be approved and accepted in accordance with the policies of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. PREPARED BY: ~arral Paradis, Director of Procurement Gwen Caraway, Fixed Asset Property Manager\n\u0026gt;=\u0026lt; DONATIONS School/De(!artment Item Donor Central High School $149.27 cash to be Marion W. Fulk used to purchase a tent for the boys' track team J.A. Fair High School $500.00 grant to be The Walton Foundation used for technology Wal-Mart Store #126 in Desktop Publishing Fulbright Elementary Field trip, valued at Alltel Corporation School $499.50, for Mrs. Gray's second grade class to see \"Dora, the Explorer\" on October 18, 2005 Jefferson Elementary \"Agency Hands in the The Allstate Foundation School Community\" grant check in the amount of $500.00 to the Stars Program McClellan High School $50.00 cash for incentive Miriam Bernard of program for students Salon Benefits, LLC scoring proficient and advanced on the AR ACT AAP Algebra test McClellan High School $50.00 cash for incentive Mike Parker of Parker program for students and Associates Metal Sales scoring proficient and advanced on the AR ACTAAP Algebra test McClellan High School $50.00 cash for incentive Raymond House program for students scoring proficient and advanced on the AR ACT AAP Algebra test McClellan High School $50.00 cash for incentive McClellan High School PTSA program for students scoring proficient and advanced on the AR ACT AAP Algebra test School/Department Rightsell Academy Rightsell Academy $710.05 check to be used for incentives $200.00 cash to be used to purchase rainy day games for students Donor Second Baptist Church Rightsell PTA !.D., z \u0026gt;z 0 ~ u, Litt{e 'Rock Centra{ Jfigli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutli Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, ..'Arkansas 72202 'Pfione 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 11/10/2005 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT I' FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL~ t,~CLL,v SUBJECT: DONATION Marion W. Fulk of 105 Colonial Court, Little Rock, AR 72205, donated $149.27 to purchase a tent for our boy's track. team. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. J A. Fair Magnet High School Science and Technology Systems 13420 David 0. Dodd Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Phone 501-447-1700 . Fax 5-1-448-1701 To: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement From: Randy Rutherford, Princip~-R Re: Donation Date: November 18, 2005 I would like to recommend that the following donation to J. A Fair High School Be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District: A grant from the Walton Foundation in the amount of $500.00 to be used for technology in Desktop Publishing. Kenita Thompson Wal-Mart Store #126 700 South Bowman Rd. Little Rock, AR 72212 Fulbright Elementary Memo To: From: CC: Date: Darral Paradis, Director Of Procurement Deborah Mitchell, Principal November 4, 2005 Re: Donations to Fulbright Elementary Alltel Corporation, PO Box 3373, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 has generously donated a field trip for Mrs. Gray's Second Grade Class to see Dora The Explorer on October 18, 2005. The trip is valued at $499.50. It is recommended that this donation be approved with thanks in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District board of Directors. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, \u0026amp;~\u0026amp;J~) Deborah Mitchell Principal DM:lam .. - t ,-.. ' ' -\n-. -- - r - - :, . ' . NOV 4. 2~S5 !. ...... _ t... ..... -- .. _ ... _ J  .: ... ~ - R-- Check # 2089136 Check Date 10/18/05 Invoice Date 11 H 05 CELEBRITY ATTRACTIONS 300 S SPRING STE 100 LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 CELEBRITY ATTRACTIONS Invoice Description Number ACR21311 TICKETS FULBRI ALL TEL CORPORATION 000001 799 0 54 Vendor # 18169726 Amount t499 _50 2089136 Gross Discount Net Amount Amount Amount 499 . 50 499 . 50 ----------- --------- -- ----------- 499 .50 499 . 50 LITTLE ROCK, Al 72203 l~y THE AUTHENTICITY OF THIS MULTI-TONE SECURITY DOCUMENT.  CHECK BACKGROUND AREA CHANGES COLOR GRADUALLY FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. f ~  ,7,\"\"'  .,.,_ N' .. ,,, - . \"\"\" .... - _. . - - .. --- -~ r----~~~--: ._,._, ~olll..,Tf.~ .. TJW't .. 11\"\"~ J.llltEl ALL TEL CORPORATION PO BOX -3373 AP HELPDESK (501) 905-7388 FOUR HUNDRED NINETY NINE AND 50/100 Pay to the order of: CELEBRITY ATTRACTIONS 300 S SPRING STE 100 LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 .y LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203 Check Number: 2089136 Control Number 18169726 ..!!::lliL 111 Date Pay this Amount 1 10/18/05 I s. ...... 499.50 1 NOT VALID AFTER 180 DAYS 81 nkof Amuica NA ~ d,, Aitla nt, 1 D,k,lb Cou~t~, Gur1ia ~ --______ ______ _________ _________ _:_ ____ ~ UIJIORJZED_Sllil,IA.I.U RE ___ _ !I' .., z \u0026gt;z (\") ~ JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL October 25, 2005 To: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management From: Roberta Mannon, Principal Jefferson Elementary School Re: Donation to Jefferson Elementary School The Jefferson STARS program is pleased to accept the Agency Hands in the Community grant check for $500.00 from the Allstate Foundation. The Allstate Foundation 8711 Freeport Parkway North Irving, TX 75063 Attn: Accounts Payable A-2 It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Sincerely, Roberta Mannon Principal r~- l' n.... ... \" ....... -  McCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL THE ACADEMIES: BUSINESS FINANCE, ENGINEERING, MULTIMEDIA TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Darrell Paradis, Director of Procurement Larry Buck, Princi~ Donation November 7, 2005 I would like to recommend that the following donation to McClellan High School be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District: A donation of $50.00 from Miriam Bernard of Salon Benefits, LLC, PO Box 22416, Little Rock, AR 72221. This donation is to be used for a Student Incentive Program. This program is to award students who scored proficient and advanced on the Arkansas ACT AAP Algebra test. r:--:,. \"\":\": ~- r : ~,., ~ ~~ ~~ t,. .. , ... ..: _\n...... ~ - ..... 9417 Geyer Springs Road Phone 447-2100  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 .?..,' z \u0026gt;z 0 \u0026gt;,... U\u0026gt; McCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL TO: FROM: RE: DATE: THE ACADEMIES: BUSINESS FINANCE, ENGINEERING, MULTIMEDIA Darrell Paradis, Director of Procurement Larry Buck, Principal@J Donation November 4, 2005 I would like to recommend that the following donations to McClellan High School be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District: A donation of $50.00 from Mike Parker of Parker and Associates Metal Sales, PO Box 257, Mabelvale, AR 72103. A donation of $50.00 from Raymond House, 12000 Cherrystone Circle, Little Rock, AR 72210. A donation of $50.00 from McClellan High School PTSA, 9417 Geyer Springs Rd., Little Rock, AR 72209 These donations are to be used for a Student Incentive Program. This program is to award students who scored proficient and advanced on the Arkansas ACT AAP Algebra test. S ,-, --.l~ ~ _ ,._.., _ 9417 Geyer Springs Road  Phone 447-2100  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Rightsell Academy Katina Ray, Principal 2700 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone (501) 447-6700 Fax (501) 447-6701 ~ Rightsell ... United for Student Achievement!~ To: Darral Paradis From: Katina Ray, Principal Date: 11/07/2005 Re: Donation Rightsell Academy recei,ed a check in the amount of S7 l 0.05 from Second Baptist Church, 222 East Eighth Street, Little Rock, AR 72202. The money has been deposited in our school acti,ity account to be used for incenti\\'es. It is my recommendation that tl1is donation be accepted in accordance with tJ1e policies of tJ1e ljttJe Rock School District.\n\u0026gt;=\u0026lt; !..\", z \u0026gt;z C') ~ en Rightsell Academy Katina Ray, Principal 2700 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone (501) 447-6700 Fax (501) 447-6701 ~ Rightsell ... United for Student Achievement! ~ To: Darral Paradis ,, From: Katina Ray, Principal , \u0026lt;S [_, Date: 11/07/2005 Re: Donation 'The Right,\nell PTA has donated S200 to the school. The money will be used for rainy clay games for the students. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: December 15, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Financial Reports BACKGROUND: Financial reporting is designed to keep the Board of Directors up-to-date regarding the District's current financial condition. Financial reports are submitted monthly to the Board for review and approval. RATIONALE: November 2005 financial reports are submitted for the Board's review and approval. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the financial reports as submitted. PREPARED BY: Jean A. Ring, Director Finance and Accounting LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2004 AND 2005 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2004/05 11 /30/04 COLLECTED 2005/06 11 /30/05 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 61,436,691 23,738,299 38.64% 67,268,610 23,880,924 35.50% DELINQUENT TAXES 12,135,000 3,879,273 31 .97% 9,200,000 5,604,871 60.92% 40% PULLBACK 31,250,000 0.00% 33,000,000 0.00% EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 205,000 0.00% 210,000 0.00% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 155,000 0.00% 145,000 0.00% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 185,000 0.00% 204,000 0.00% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 485,000 66,215 13.65% 365,000 68,212 18.69% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 245,000 138,537 56.55% 750,000 345,521 46.07% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 215,000 124,843 58.07% 195,000 127,964 65.62% TOTAL 106,311 ,691 27,947,167 26.29% 111,337,610 30,027,491 26.97% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 22,000 11 ,183 50.83% 21 ,500 9,963 46.34% TOTAL 22,000 11 ,183 50.83% 21 ,500 9,963 46.34% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 65,082,694 23,704,408 36.42% 66,095,155 23,416,098 35.43% ALTERNATIVE LEARNING 1,927,250 963,624 50.00% 1,100,000 0.00% ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 193,739 0.00% 200,000 0.00% NATL SCHL LUNCH STUDENT FUNDING 6,498,240 2,362,996 36.36% 6,877,920 2,501 ,060 36.36% PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1,141 ,165 1,141 ,165 100.00% 953,144 953,144 100.00% SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS(STRS/HEAL TH) 8,275,000 2,775,052 33.54% 8,200,000 3,589,874 43.78% VOCATIONAL 1,350,000 528,811 39.17% 1,785,000 842,674 47.21% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 2,100,000 95,850 4.56% 2,425,000 319,457 13.17% EARLY CHILDHOOD 5,542,510 2,593,434 46.79% 4,000,000 2,352,400 58.81% TRANSPORTATION 4,125,000 1,325,044 32.12% 4,252,900 1,415,633 33.29% M TO M TRANSFERS 4,575,000 1,244,739 27.21% 4,100,000 1,214,454 29.62% ADULT EDUCATION 934,380 159,488 17.07% 926,543 127,273 13.74% AT RISK FUNDING 395,000 9,400 2.38% 10,000 0.00% TAP PROGRAM 382,903 7,645 2.00% 288,623 142,623 49.41% TOTAL 102,522,882 36,911,656 36.00% 101 ,214,285 36,874,690 36.43% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 770,000 0.00% 770,000 0.00% TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,295,000 8,155 0.63% 1,370,524 13,285 0.97% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,849,008 0.00% 2,194,000 0.00% TOTAL 3,914,008 8,155 0.21% 4,334,524 13,285 0.31% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 212,770,581 64,878,161 30.49% 216,907,919 66,925,428 30.85% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 22,887,794 5,898,962 25.77% 20,152,896 2,413,281 11 .97% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 4,500,000 686,501 15.26% 4,784,200 683,181 14.28% MAGNET SCHOOLS 27,964,934 4,700,776 16.81% 28,849,578 5,105,249 17.70% CHARTER SCHOOL 1,340,000 800,000 59.70% TOTAL 55,352,728 11 ,286,239 20.39% 55,126,674 9,001 ,711 16.33% TOT AL REVENUE 268,123,309 76,164,400 28.41% 272,034,593 75,927,139 27.91% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2004 AND 2005 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2004/05 11/30/04 EXPENDED 2005/06 11/30/05 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 117,324,912 34,814,130 29.67% 122,589,665 35,389,606 28.87% BENEFITS 36,185,811 9,790,728 27.06% 35,925,642 10,124,163 28.18% PURCHASED SERVICES 20,959,918 6,423,581 30.65% 22,438,191 6,918,919 30.84% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,725,914 3,462,370 39.68% 10,128,394 5,486,667 54.17% CAPITAL OUTLAY 2,760,600 457,890 16.59% 2,473,965 542,650 21 .93% OTHER OBJECTS 10,770,418 440,411 4.09% 10,759,804 617,761 5.74% DEBT SERVICE 12,474,809 4,590,834 36.80% 12,344,267 4,670,033 37.83% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 209,202,382 59,979,944 28.67% 216,659,928 63,749,799 29.42% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,258,999 5,488,675 21.73% 22,422,961 4,598,387 20.51% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 5,007,809 1,520,297 30.36% 5,428,425 2,078,406 38.29% MAGNET SCHOOLS 27,964,934 7,196,468 25.73% 28,849,578 7,784,180 26.98% CHARTER SCHOOL 1,340,000 306,064 22.84% TOTAL 58,231 ,742 14,205,440 24.39% 58,040,964 14,767,037 25.44% TOT AL EXPENSES 267,434,124 74,185,384 27.74% 274,700,892 78,516,835 28.58% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 689,184 1,979,016 (2,666,300) (2,589,696) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET, M \u0026amp; 0, CHARTER 4,005,957 4,005,957 3,074,390 3,074,390 OPERATING 6,531 ,706 6,531,706 10,753,692 10,753,692 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET, M \u0026amp;\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":23,"next_page":24,"prev_page":22,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":264,"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}}]}}