{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_17","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":["2005-02"],"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/17"],"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\nFebruary 28, 2005 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 A~ 1 - 2005 l\"[\"t'I\" Mr. Stephen W. Jones DESEG NITORING Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 February 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ,-~ c) .,- \u0026lt;:_e, , ' '----Seott Sm t  General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair-JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair-Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 February 2005. Respectfully Submitted, luU~ Scott Smith, Bar # 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 February 28, 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.M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 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 February 28, 2005 Based on the information available at January 31, 2005, the ADE calculated the State Foundation Funding for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 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 February 28, 2005 Based on ttie information avc!ilable at Janua!)'. 31, 2005, the ADE calculated foll FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2005 On January 31, 2005, distributions of State Fol.lndation Funding for F\nY 04/05 were as follows: LRSD - $35,499,649 NLRSD - $18,165,908 PCSSD - $32,592, 114 The allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 04/05 at January 31, 2005, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $65,082,694 NLRSD - $33,304,168 PCSSD -: $59,752,214 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 February 28, 2005 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at January 31, 2005 for FY 04/05, 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 February 28, 2005 Based or1Jt1e t(lformation available, the ADE calculated at Janua 31 2005 fo FY 04i05, subject to periodic adjustments. 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. G. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2005 Based on a Court Order on August 27, 2004 for FY 03/04, an adjustment was made in the expense per child. A final magnet payment of 56,074 for FY 03/04 was made to the LRSD on November 10, 2004. Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at January 31, 2005 for fY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2005 Distributions for FY 04/05 at January 31, 2005, totaled $7,356,439. Allotment calculated for FY 04/05 was $14,062,106 subject to periodic 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 February 28, 2005 Calculated for FY 02/03, 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 February 28, 2005 LRSD - $2,048,076 NLR$D - $1,939,021 eC$Sb - $5,696\n304 The allotments calculated for FY 04/05 at January 31, 2005, subject.Jo perio~ic adjustments, were: LRSD - $3,990,194 NLRSD - $4,091,028 pcsso - $10,999,146 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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. 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 February 28, 2005 In February 2004, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 03/04 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2004, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $2,487,682.66 NLRSD - $526,000.00 PCSSD - $1,454,813.26 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 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 February 28, 2005 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. 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 February 28, 2005 (Continued) 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 February 28, 2005 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. 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 February 28, 2005 (Continued) 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. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. 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 type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. 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 February 28, 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. Specifications for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M school buses have been forwarded to State Purchasing for bidding. Bids will be opened on May 12, 2003. The buses will have a required delivery date after July 1, 2003 and before August 8, 2003. 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. 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 February 28, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 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 February 28, 2005 Distribution in July 1997for 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of February 28, 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. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2005 (Continued) 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. 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 February 28, 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 tci 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 February 28, 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 vis'its 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 February 28, 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 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 February 28, 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 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 Clearence 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 February 28, 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. 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 17 48 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 February 28, 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. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2005 Ongoing 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 Ed1.-1cation. 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 Monitoting 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 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 February 28, 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 qnd 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 February 28, 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. 38 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 February 28, 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. 39 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 February 28, 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. 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 February 28, 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. 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 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. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 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 1'997, 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 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. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 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 (ACT MP). 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 MP 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 ACT MP 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 MP 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 MP 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 MP 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 ACT MP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 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 ACTAAP 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. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2005 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry anq 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 ACT AAP 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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 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. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 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. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 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. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2005 (Continued) On Decemb.er 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. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 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 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 keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2005 (Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Bena Kallick presented \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". Ken Stamatis presented \"Smart Steps to Creating a School Culture That Supports Adolescent Comprehension\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On August 8, 2002, Steven Weber held a workshop at Booker T. Washington Elementary on \"Best Practices in Social Studies\". It was presented to the 4th grade teachers in the Little Rock School District. The workshop focused around the five themes of geography and the social studies (fourth grade) framework/standards. Several Internet web sites were shared with the teachers, and the teachers were shown methods for incorporating writing into fourth grade social studies. One of the topics was using primary source photos and technology to stimulate the students to write about diverse regions. A theme of the workshop included identifying web sites which apply to fourth grade social studies teachers and\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_1045","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":["2005-02"],"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--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents","Education--Curricula","School enrollment"],"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/1045"],"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  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nAgenda FEB 2 2005 DESEGREG ~ llTDRING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting -~1-:: ~ ~:~::::-t:::~:: ):\n~(r\n: . . - .. 2 5 C') )\u0026gt;\"D .j..- ~,.. -\u0026lt;- 031:: ~ ~ ~~\n,o.., -c:\n,oz .o...n... ,.. ~ oz ,~..( I) \u0026gt;~  \"D CIIQ C:\n,o \"D .... :-'~ o\n,o :::im \u0026gt;C') =! 8 Oz ~::! 0 z (I) !\"' \"D\nz m ill ::c 'iS (I) 0 0 :::\n.c Nm ,...z\n,o (I) ..,-.,. on )\u0026gt;:!I: :!I: .zm.. . (I) I. 11. 111. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING February 24, 2005 5:30 p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests B. Student Performance - Mitchell Academy REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association 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 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes Regular Meeting 01-27-05 Special Meeting 02-10-05 ,... n \u0026gt;.,, ~~ .... c Oll: oz ~?ii m-\u0026lt;\nl:l..., -c: :o..l.:..In..Z.. I'\"\" l5 nz ~en ::e\n= m-,:, I'\"\"\nl:l gg ll:m me -c: ~~ ~~\nl:l ::l ~m Z:l:l Ot/\u0026gt; m-\nl:l . .m,, t/\u0026gt;O .C,,:\n.l.:..l :-\u0026lt; 111 O:l:l :::::im \u0026gt;n -\u0026lt;8 Oz ~3 0 z (/) ?.,,' \u0026gt; ~z m ~ :c '6 (/) n n :::. c. Nm r- z\nl:l(J) nn .... o \u0026gt;\nc\nc m .z.. . (J) Regular Board Meeting February 24, 2005 Page2 VI. SCHOOL SERVICES A. Naming of Facilities: Proposal to Name Football Field at Quigley Stadium VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES A. Grant Application: Minority Initiative - Tobacco Prevention Program B. First Reading: Revision of Policy JE - Student Enrollment, Attendance and Transfers VIII. CURRICULUM \u0026amp; INSTRUCTION A. First Reading: Revision to Policy IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements First Reading: Revision to Policy IAA - Professional Development and Review of Regulation IAA-R Review of Regulation ID-R - Student Schedules IX. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes X. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Resolution Authorizing Execution of a Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB) Agreement B. Employee Request to Conduct Business with The District C. Donations of Property D. Financial Report XI. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI I. ADJOURNMENT n\u0026gt; .,, F.... ~_ OE oz\n:o\u0026gt; ~~\n:o.., -\n:oCz: ,o... n.... ..... c5 nz j!: en ..... :E\n= m-,:, r-\n:o gg Emmo - C: ~~ ~r- 0~\n:o::1 ~m z\n:o n en m~ p n :::\n,:, ~ ,....z\n:o(/) n.... no \u0026gt; 3: 3: m z... . (/) I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME/ PERFORMANCE Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. CITIZENS COMMENTS 0. LR CTA To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 February 24, 2005 Board of Education Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education ~ Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Partners in Education Program: New partnerships 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. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnerships: Alternative and Accelerated Learning Centers and Little Rock Job Corps Chicot Elementary and Popeye's Chicken and Biscuits Martin Luther King, Jr. Magnet Elementary and Cozymel's ?' 0 U) . ~ ctome 8=:i !!l~ CUI \"D~ Cz \u0026gt;31: m-\u0026lt;mz .... ~ 0 0 z ~\n:,:, m i3 ~ !T1 \u0026gt; C C =I 0\n:,:, (/)\n:,:, m c3 .\n:.,.:., !'\"' n :::j .c Nm ,- z\n:,:, (/) n_.no \u0026gt; 3: 3C m .z.. . (/) Job Corps and LRSD Partnership The Little Rock Job Corps and the LRSD ALC and ACC Programs will strengthen their partnership by: Job Corps will provide services that may include: Grounds upkeep at ALC, ALC Garland, and ACC Provide the man power to paint at ALC Apperson and ALC Garland Provide clerical assistance for the ALC Provide a Career Day at the ALC Through the Vocational Training Department - build cabinets and benches for the ALC andACC Little Rock School District will: Provide the academic component for Job Corps students who fall under the compulsory attendance guidelines as required by the State, and Provide Inservice for Job Corps Staff Members Partnership Proposal Popeyes Chicken \u0026amp; Biscuits--Baseline and Chicot Elementary Popeyes Chicken \u0026amp; Biscuits--Baseline commits to the following partnership activities:  Send readers on ViPS Reading Day  Provide coupons quarterly to be used for student incentives  Provide lunch for teachers twice per year  Provide teacher discount club cards for each staff member  Provide a free dinner to be used as a door prize for PTA meeting each nine weeks Chicot Elementary commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide artwork for display at restaurant  Provide a banner to hang at the restaurant  Acknowledge Popeyes Chicken \u0026amp; Biscuits--Baseline as a Partner in Education in school materials  Invite the restaurant employees to school events and volunteer recognition events !\" \u0026gt; C: C ~ 0\nc \"'\nc m c3 ~ 0 (\") :::. !='~ ,...z\nc\"' (\")(\") _.a \u0026gt;\nrr:: m .z.. . \"' 02/04/2005 15:28 50144751 01 Martin Luther King, Jr. Magnet Elementary School and Cozymel's Coastal Mexican Grill will enter into the following partnership agreement for the 2004-2005 school ye. King Magnet Elementary will: 1. send a monthly calendar of events. 2. invite employees to parent night meetings. 3. allow the business to use the multipurpose room for meetings. 4. provide art work to be used as special placemats. Cozymel's will: 1. help with standardiZed testing attendance by providing incentives. 2. provide menus and recipes for math dasses. 3. participate in VIPS Reading Day. 4. help with the annual staff luncheon. 5. set up at booth at Fall Fest for the Dining Dinero program. 6. provide coupons for Honors Assemblies. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: February 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: February 2005 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: The drawings and specifications for the remodeling of Rightsell Elementary School will be completed by March 1st . Review of these documents by the LRSD and governmental code enforcement authorities will occur for a period of two (2) or three (3) weeks after March 1st . The bidding process will begin the latter part of March, and the bids should be received in late April. Construction is scheduled to begin the week of June 6, which is the first week that there are no students in the building. The drawings and specifications for the classroom addition to Gibbs are nearing completion by the architect. This project will be bid soon. 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 r\" \u0026gt; C: C =l 0\n,:, (J)\n,:, m\n_ls ~ CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD FEBRUARY 24, 2005 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I t::st. (.\nompIetIon Date Central Renovation - Interior -- $10,200,266 Aug-05 ----Roof - -- - Fair Park $245,784 Mar-05 -- -- -- -- ~ - ---- Scott Field Track Renovations $289,056 Mar-05 --- -- -- Wilson HVAC for Cafeteria $56,000 Mar-05 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - WINTER/ SPRING 2004-05 Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Carver Media Center Expansion $167,490 --- Aug-05 Gibbs Addition I $705,670 Feb-06 Meadowcliff I Remodel L $164,150 Aug-05 Oakhurst {Adult Education) l'kwWindows -- -- $215,000 Aug-0 Rightsell Renovation $2,494~000 - Aug-06 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I t::st. (.\nompIetIon Date Booker Electrical Upgrade -- - Unknown Unknown Unknown -- - C-hi-cot Electrical Upgrade Unknown --- - - - - Cloverdale Elementary_ _ A-dd-ition --- $520,750 Unknown Fair Park Remodel $799,000 Aug-05 -- --- Forest Heights - Remodel $1,547-.0oo - Unknown -- - --- - Unknown - Garland Remodel Unknown -- -- - -- ~ - -- Mitchell Renovation - $2,212,493 Unknow-n Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Unknown -- Western Hills Ele~ical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $622,160 Aug-05 - Woodruff Parking addition $193,777 Unknown BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Administration Asbes-tos aba-tem-ent -- $380,495 Mar-03 Administration - Fresh air system - $55,000 Aug-03 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 - Aug-03 Administration HVAC $70,000 Nov-04 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation - $15,160 Oct-01 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Dec-01 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement - $237,237 Jul-01 - Badgett Fire alarm - - $18,250 - Aug-02 Bale Classroom addition/renovation - $2,244,524 Dec-02 Bale Energy monitoring system Mar-02 Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Dec-01 Bale HVAC $664,587 Aug-01 Baseline Renovation $953,520 Aug-04 Booker Gym Roof $48,525 Oct-04 Booker ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Aug-04 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Apr-01 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Oct-01 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Feb-02 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Mar-02 Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Nov-04 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Auci-02 Facility Name CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 24, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I I Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 May-01 Carver Parking lot ~ 7 42r Aug-03 Central HVAC Renovation - Band Area , _ $225,000 Dec_:Q Central Reflecting Pond ' $57,561 Sep-04 rc=-e-n-tr-a-,1-----P =--a-r--k,--,-i-n---g-----~S-t-ud_e_n_t_p,'-a----rk-in_g__ I - $174,000 _ - Aug-03 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair 1 $265,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement I $38,000 Aug-03 rc=-e-n-tr-a--1:-/--:-Q=--uci-g\"'-,l--e-~y-----~l-rr,ig--a-t-i,-o- n--=s--ys-t-em-'---- -- -- _l __ ___ f-14:soo Aug-03 Central Purchase land for school L_ Unknown Dec-0~ Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000 ,000 Dec-02 Central Ceiling and wall repair --==----=:=- $24,000 Oct-01 Central I Fire Alarm System Design/Installation __ $80,876 Aug-0_!_ Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Aug-01 Chicot Drainage -1--- $64,700 Aug-04 Chicot - Sound Attenuation __ I_ $43,1~ Jul-04 C- lo-ve-rd-a-le- El_em__ Energy efficient lighting $132,678 - Jul-01 i-,C,...1.-ov_e_r-da_l_e_M_Sc--------E-n_e_r_g,,.y efficient lighting -- $189,743 - Jul-01 -C-lo-verd-a-le_M_S__ Major renovation\u0026amp;addition - $1,393 ,822 Nov-02 Dodd Fire Alarm Upgrade __ -- $9,200 Oct-04 Dodd ___ ---~_E_n_erg,. y efficient lighting $90,6~ Aug-01 D_odd_ ________A sb_e_s_to_s_a_b_a_te_m--'e--n_t-ceiling tile ____ 1 _ $156,29~ Jul-01 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Aug-02 Dunbar Facilities Service Facility Services Fair Park Renovation/addition ___ $6,149,023 Nov-04 Interior renovation + $84,672-- Mar-01 Fire alarm ______ --- ----- $12,000 - Aug-03 ---HVAC renovation/fire alarm - - --- $315,956 Apr-02 Fair Park -- -- Energy efficient lighting ---- $90 ,1 62 Aug-01 F_air_P_a_rk_ ______ Asbestos abatement-ceiling ____ -- $59,310 Aug-01 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair ------room addition J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fa_ir --- J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Franklin Geyer Springs Gibbs Gibbs Hall Hall Hall Hall Energy efficient lighting ,Press box Security cameras I -----I-- ~ etic Field -lm_p_r-ov_e_m_e-nt - Irrigation System -- Roof repairs Replace window units w/central HVAC Diagonal parking Energy efficient lighting Energy efficient lighting Energy monitoring system installation Replace roof top HVAC units Parking lot Roof repairs Renovation Roof Repair Energy efficient ligh ting Energy moni toring system installation Major renovation \u0026amp; addition Asbestos abatement Energy efficient lighting Energy efficient lighting $3,155 ,640 Aug-04 $277,594 Apr-01 $10,784 Nov-00 $12 ,500 Jun-01 $38~000 - - Jul-03 $14,000 Jul-03 -- $391 ,871 Aug-03 $485,258 Nov-03 $111 ,742 Aug-03 $119,788 May-01 $134,463 Jun-01 $11,950 Aug-01 $107,835 Aug-02 $1 40,000 Sep-02 S200,000 Oct-02 S2,511 ,736 Mar-03 S161 ,752 Jun-04 S76,447 Apr-01 S11,770. Jul-01 $8,637,709 Sep-03 S168,222 Aug-01 $42,931 Jul-01 $296,707 Apr-01 2\ni\u0026gt;s C, :-- ~ ~ -Z-:-I,:: ,..\nz: -0 Ch -om r\n,:, ~~ ---tm ~ Ch z rn \u0026gt; C: 0 =i 0\n,:, Ch\n,:, m ~\n-,-:-,, CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 24, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Hall - ~rastructure improvements $93,657 Aug-01 - Hall  intercom --- Feb-01 Hall Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 -- -- - Henderson -- - Lockers $43,854 Dec-04 -+ Energy efficient lighting -- - Henderson ---- - --- $193,6~ Jul-01 Henderson Roof replacement gym $107,835 May-01 Henderson --Asbestosabatement Phase_!_ - - -- - $500,000 Aug-01 Henderson Asbestos abatemen-t P-hase 2 $250,000 Aug-02 I-RC -- -- Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Jul-02 Jefferson 2sbestos abatement $43,639 Oct-01 - - - - - -+- Jefferson Renovation \u0026amp; fi-re -ala-rm - - $1,630,0Q_Q__, ----No-v-0-2 Laidlaw Parking lot $269,588 Jul-01 -- Fire Alarm Upgrade- - Mablevale Elem $12,000 Oct-04 - Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 -- Mabe-lvale Elem. - Aug-01 Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units $300,000 Aug-02 --- - Asbestos Abatement -,- Mabe-lvale Elem. - $107,000 ' Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. - Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Dec-02 + Mabelvale MS Renovate bleachers $134)93 Aug-01 ~enovation - +-- Mabelvale MS --- - - - $6,851,621 Mar-04 Mann Partial Replacement $'!1,500,000 __Ap r-04 - - - Mann Asphalt walks --- The total $1.8 million , Dec-01 Mann - -- Walkway canopies is what has been - Dec-01 Mann -- - --- Boiler replacement used so far on the - Oct-01 Mann Fencing projects listed Sep-01 ----,-Partial demolition/portable classrooms - Mann completed for Mann. Aug-01 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 -- - McClellan Irrigation System ____ ,_ $14,750 Jul-03 - - McClellan Security cameras $36,300 Jun-01 --- _,_ -- McClellan --- - Energy efficient lighting -- -- - $303,614 - - May-01 McClellan - -- Stadium stands~ pair -- $235,000 Aug-01 McClellan - Intercom - $46,000 Feb-02 $2,155,622 - McClellan Classroom Addition Jul-04 McDermott Fire Alarm Upgrade - $7,700 ~ep-04 McDermott Energy efficient lighting $79,41-1~ Feb-01 McDermott Replace roof top HVAC units - $476,000 Aug-02 - Meadowcliff Fire alarm - $16,175 Jul-01 Meadowcliff Asbestos abatement - - $253,412 Aug-02 Meadowcliff Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 - Dec-02 Metropolitan Replace cooling tower $37,203 Dec-DO Metropolitan Replace shop vent system $20,000 May-01 Metropolitan Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Aug-01 Mitchell Building Remediation $165,000 Jul-04 Mitchell Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Apr-01 Mitchell Energy monitoring system installation S16,695 Jul-01 Mitchell Asbestos abatement S13,000 Jul-01 Oakhurst HVAC renovation S237,237 Aug-01 Otter Creek Energy monitoring system installation S10,695 May-01 Otter Creek Energy efficient lighting S81,828 Apr-01 Otter Creek Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 Otter Creek Parking lot $138,029 Aug-02 Otter Creek 6 classroom addition $888,778 Oct-02 Otter Creek Parkinq Improvements $142,541 Aug-03 3 CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD FEBRUARY 24, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I I I Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date Parkview Addition __ _ $2,121--_26 _ Dec-04 Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 Jun-02 Parkview I Roof replacement $273,877-- Sep-01 Exterior lights $10,784 Nov-00 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700area controls Parkview Parkview Parkview $301,938 Aug-OJ_ Locker replacement __ _ $120,000--:-- ~t1l-01 Parkview Procurement Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Jun-01 I Energy monitoring systerninstallation I $5,290 Jun-02 Procurement I Fire alarm -- $25,000 1 - Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation -----$1, 193,259 Nov-04 t-::P:-u-,l-a-s-,k--i -H=gt_s_. -E-le_m_ ___ ___.lM~_o_v_e_p_la_y_g_ro_u_n_d____ - - $17,000 - Dec-02 Pulaski Hgts. MS 1Renovation - - ~ $3,755,041 - Nov-04 --- Rightsell Energy efficient lighti_n,ge___ ------~ - $84,89~ ~r-01 R:-o_c,.k...e_f:e--l,l-e_r_ ______- -=E_n_e.r...g,,=y_e_ff_ic_ie_n_t_li_,,,_ght_in__g,,,__ _ $137,004 _ Mar-01 Rockefeller ______R_ e_p,__la_ce_ro_o_f_to___p,__H_V_A_C____ _ _ $53~75 ~ ~g-01 Rockefeller Parking addition $111,742 Aug-02 R_o_m_in_e_ _______ __._Al__sb_estos abatement -- -=-_-=-_--=-_ $10,000 l-- - Apr-02 1--::,R-o_m_i.n.,..e--=--=------..M,.._a_,_oj_r_r_en_o_v_a_ti_on _\u0026amp;_a_d_d_it_io_n_ __ $3,534,675 Mar-03 SecurityfTransportation Bus cameras $22,500 - Jun-01 1-:S:-0-u-th_w_,e_s_t _~-----'-A_d_d-iti_on ______ -- ~- $2,000,000 -,-- ~v-04 Southwest Southwest - \\Asbestos abatement New roof Southwest Energy efficient lighting Southwest -- _ Drainage / street widen~ Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation Student Assignment - - 'Fire alarm Tech Center Phase 1 -- Renovation -- -- Tech Ctr I Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II Technology Upgrade upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data _ Terry Energy efficient lighting Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking T er.!}'_ - Media Center addition Wakefield Rebuild Wakefield - _ - -=--= Securit_y_c_a_m_e-ra_s ____ _ Wakefield _ _ Energy efficient lighting Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement Washington Washington Washington Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Western Hills Western Hills Western Hills Western Hills Western Hills Williams Williams Williams Wilson Wilson Woodruff -Fire Alarm Upgrade Security earner~ Energy efficientlighting Energy monitoring system installation Asbestos abatement Energy efficient lighting Asbestos abatement Major renovation \u0026amp; addition Fire Alarm Upgrade ADA Rest rooms Asbestos abatement Intercom Energy efficient lighting Renovation Parking expansions Energy efficient lighting Renovation/expansion Parking Expansion Renovation $28, 138 -- _ ~g-00 $690,000 _ _ _Qct-03 $168,719 _ Jan-02 $250,000 Aug-03 $4,830 Aug-02 $9,000 Aug-03 $275,000 Dec-01 $3,679,000 Jun-04 Nov-02 - $73,850 Feb-01 ~ $83,484 ~ug-02 $704,932 Sep-02 - $5,300,000 - Dec-04 $8,000 Jun-01 - $74,776 Feb-01 - - $200,000 Nov-02 - $11,600 Oct-04 $7,900 Jun-01 $165,281 Apr-01 $8,530 Jul-01 $182,241 Aug-01 $106,868 Aug-01 $10,000 Aug-02 $800,000 Aug-02 $8,400 Oct-04 525,000 Aug-04 $191,946 Aug-02 $7,100. Dec-01 $106,000 Jul-01 $2,106,492 Mar-04 $183,717 Dec-03 $122,719 Jun-01 $1,263,876 Feb-04 $110,000 Aug-03 $246,419 Aug-02 4\ni,,s Cl,- ~ ~ .Z...! -I: \u0026gt;\nz: -,:,u, -,:,m ,... ::0 c\u0026gt;'inS -tm iz: 5\"' rn \u0026gt; C: C =I 0 ::0 en ::0 .m,, 0 ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: February 24, 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: andy Becker Date: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 24, 2005 To: Board of Directors @ From: Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - February This is the sixty-fourth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, one middle schools and three elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity 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) Pro Cards are in place for most sites of the District. Local purchase orders (paper vouchers) have been replaced by Pro Cards. Pro Cards have been basically limited to operational fund purchases. A process is being developed to use the Pro Cards for travel, activity fund expenditures, and for grant expenditures where appropriate. With each added area Pro Cards are used in, guidelines must be developed or modified to reflect the proper use and documentation for the cards. Technology Training a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Facilitating technology upgrade in cooperation with the English Department for Yearbook and 1ewspaper production staff in LRSD high schools to improve access to tools needed for students and staff. a) Served as a trainer for finai~cial portion of uts \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. Audit Report - February 2005 Page 2 of2 b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) 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. d) Developed skills test for financial positions. Implementing in coordination with Human Resources. 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) i) a) b) c) 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. Reviewing Teacher School Supply Fund Records for recommendations. Assisting in travel regulation modifications for submission to the Board. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Served as District coordinator of United Way's Day of Caring (April 17, 2004) and on planning committee for 2005. 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 fu1iher infom1ation. My telephone number is 501-44 7-11 I 5. 1y e-mail is sandy.bcckcr@lrsd.org. ?-s Cl,- ~ ~ .z..\n.\nr-:: .\u0026gt;.,\nz\":' -.,m ,...\no oS \u0026gt;n -\u0026lt;m cz5 \"' ?J .., ~ ,0.. .\n-o nr\n: -\u0026lt; 0 \u0026lt;-.- mZ Cl DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 February 24, 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 took place:  Training for both teachers and parents at Parkview in using Edline has occurred since the last report. Edline is the product that provides web access to student grades, attendance and other activities. The other high schools will be brought up as soon as we have fully assessed the Parkview implementation.  E-rate activities this month include an audit visit for the circuits supplied by DIS, reimbursement filings for 2003-2004 school year, program questions about the 2005-2006 applications that have been filed, and preparations for the final filings for 2005-2006 school year. We still have no word on any of our applications for the 2004-2005 school year. RATIONALE: To implement the LRSD Technology Plan 2003 - 2006 FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept this report. PREPARED BY: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director, Computer Information Services ~ M 0 ~ ,-:x, or\n',: -\u0026lt;o c...- mZ G'l '!\"'\u0026lt; ~= o  rn !5~ m:x, CJ\u0026gt;\"\"(') C :x,r me G'l3: C po r\n- __,z 0~ z  CJ\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: February 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Naming of Facilities: Proposal to Name Football Field at Quigley Stadium BACKGROUND: Parents, students, and supporters of the Central High School football program have submitted a request for the Board to consider renaming the athletic field Quigley Stadium in honor of Coach Bernie Cox. Coach Cox has been at Central High School since 1972 and has been head football coach since 1975. He has won seven state championships and his win-loss record makes him the \"winningest\" coach in Central's long history, with a 250 wins, 93 losses, and 8 ties. RATIONALE: In accordance with Board Policy FF: Naming of Facilities, this request is submitted for your review. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: The administration requests approval to name the football field at Quigley Stadium in honor of Coach Bernie Cox. PREPARED BY: Nancy Rousseau, Principal Marian Lacey, Associate Superintendent \u0026gt;?\u0026lt;  a,\nJ:J C: men is z ,-m C:\"' l\"~5\"\"'\"\n'' ~~ a,\"' .,.\u0026lt; -0 = o,-  (\") Q~ m\n,:, cn-pog\nJ:J ,m c: C'l lC C: po !j\n:- .... z 0~ z  \"' NAMING AND RENAMING FACILITIES I propose that the field in Earl Quigley Stadium, c/o Little Rock Central High School, 1500 S. Park, be named for Bernie Cox. I. Biographical Data: Bernie Cox is a native Arkansan. Coach Cox graduated from Harding University in 1965. He was a lettennan for the Harding Bison football team from 1962 - 1965. His tenure at Little Rock Central High School began in 1972 when he served as an assistant football coach under Joe Fred Young. Coach Cox became the Head Football Coach at Central High in 1975 and he holds that position today. Coach Cox has been married to Myrene since 1966\nthey have two children and four grandchildren. II. The Nominee's Significant Contribution Is: Coach Cox's accomplishments as a head football coach at Central are legendary. Coach Cox's teams at Central have won seven state championships and compiled a winloss record of 250 wins, 93 losses and 8 ties . That record makes him the winningest Coach in Central history. A number of his players have gone on to play collegiate and professional sports. More importantly, Coach Cox has been a shining example and role model for his players, fellow coaches, teachers and parents. A man of high moral character, he has been a great teacher of life's lessons to his players. Former players routinely state their gratitude for the impact Coach Cox had upon their lives. Parents of his players see firsthand this impact upon their sons. III. I Believe The Facility Should Be Named For This Person Because: The field should be named Bernie Cox Field to honor a person who has exemplified what the Little Rock School District needs and wants in its teachers and to remind those who come behind us of the accomplishments and contributions of this dedicated public servant. Such a reminder will serve as an inspiration for years to come. The field would be referred lo as Cox Field at Quigley Stadium in a way much like John Wooden Court at Pauley Pavilion honors a great basketball coach at UCLA. ~ 1(,(/l{J? l (Signature) Kevin and Cathy Crass Jim and Judy Irwin Cliff and Judy Henry '(Dale) DATE: February 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Grant Application: Minority Initiative Tobacco Prevention Program Background: The Arkansas Department of Health has issued a Request for Proposals for Communitybased tobacco prevention initiatives that target the minority community. The focus of our proposal is to reduce youth access to tobacco through education and youth development activities\nto implement a broad-based education/awareness campaign in the midtown area to reduce the detrimental health effects of tobacco on residents and pursue public policy strategies that protect children, youth and the public from exposure to tobacco smoke. The Little Rock School District has received tobacco prevention grant funds for the last two years from the Minority Grant Initiative. This is a grant renewal proposal for year three. Goals \u0026amp; Objectives: 1. To reduce the initiation of tobacco use among children and youth. 2. To implement school and community-based education and awareness campaigns that promote smoking cessation and adoption of healthy, smoke free lifestyles. 3. To reduce the suspension rate for smoking related offenses in LRSD schools. 4. To reduce absenteeism of children and youth due to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the home and automobiles. Rationale: Published research has documented a strong negative relationsh ip between children's exposure to tobacco smoke and their performance on tests measuring reading, math and reasoning skills. These facts add to the long list of harmful health related conditions caused by tobacco that negatively impact school attendance and the well being of our students. \"C ~ 0 ~ r\nn n- m\u0026gt; -\u0026lt;o c....mZ G) .,.\u0026lt; ,o:, = rn Q~ m\nn (/) - po g\nn ,m c G) 3: C po r\n- _,z 5~ z (/) Funding: Grant Budget: $100,000.00 - No match required. Recommendation: It is recommended that the board approve the submission of this grant application. Prepared By: Junious Babbs, Assoc. Superintendent-Administrative Services Jo Evelyn Elston, Director - Pupil Services Department LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: February 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: First Reading: Revision of Policy JE - Student Enrollment, Attendance, and Transfers BACKGROUND: Expanded language in Arkansas State Statutes for school enrollment, birth documentation and transfers has been recommended by the State Standards Monitoring Team. RATIONALE: Arkansas Department of Education compliance. FUNDING: No funding is required. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the board adopt revised Policy JE - Student Enrollment, Attendance, and Transfers PREPARED BY: Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services !D m .3.,: 5 m-\u0026lt; m\n,\n, m 0 C: m !!l p 0 0 z ~ 6 z en ?\u0026gt; \u0026lt; ,,:: o  rn !2 ~ m:,:, en - QO g\n,\n,r m c: G) 3: C: QO _-,z 6~ z  en LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JE STUDENT ENROLLMENT, ATTENDANCE, and TRANSFERS The Little Rock School District is open and free to any child five (5) through twenty-one (21) years who resides within the District and has not graduated from high school. Children who attain the age of five (5) on or before September 15th of a given year will be eligible to attend kindergarten during that school year. School attendance is required until a student's eighteenth (18th ) birthday. All students are required to maintain a level of attendance that will enable them to discharge their responsibility as learners and will enable the school to meet its obligations to the students. Parents/guardians seeking enrollment of a child in the District will provide the following:  Certified copy of birth certificate, visa/passport or military I.D. card, and /or other documentation as provided by law (A.C.A. 6-18-208)  Proof of address (lease agreement, current utility bill, or personal property tax bill)  The child's immunization record  Social security number or request that the District assign an alternate nine-digit number  Expulsion records if applicable Any student transferring from a school accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) to another school accredited by the ADE will be placed into the same grade the student would have been in had the student remained at the former school. Any student transferring from home school or a school that is not accredited by the ADE to a school that is accredited by the ADE will be evaluated by the staff of that accredited school to determine that student's proper placement in the accredited school. 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. Students transferring from out-of-state schools or from Arkansas schools that are not accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education will be assessed by the school staff to determine appropriate grade placement and course credit. Multiple criteria, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JE (continued) including the following as appropriate, will be used for decision-making in determining grade placement and credit: 1. Any performance data presented by the sending school and/or parents, such as portfolios of work, project samples, etc. 2. Indicators of achievement such as report cards, reports from participation in virtual schools, correspondence course reports, and dual-enrollment college reports. 3. Results of norm-referenced tests. 4. Results of criterion-referenced tests that are part of the sending state's NCLB accountability plan. 5. Results of assessments administered by the sending school staff, such as local criterion-referenced tests in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies: tests available through educational software programs used by the school, etc. 6. Results of \"credit-by-examinations\" in the core subject areas administered by LRSD. 7. Information gained from oral interviews with the students or performance tasks administered by LRSD staff. 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 (2) 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. Revised: Revised: May 23, 2002 Adopted: May 25, 2000 Legal References: A.C.A. 6-18-201(a), A.C.A. 6-18-202, A.C.A. 6-18-207(a) Cross References: Board of Education Policy and Regulations JLCB, IKF, IKED, IKED-R, IKC-R and the LRSD Student Handbook 2 \u0026gt; ?\u0026lt;  a,\no C: men !S z ,....m c: en \"\"'en \u0026lt;5 en ~~ ~~ a, en ?\" m .i.i,: 5 m-\u0026lt; m\no m 0 C: m !!l 0 0 0 z ~ 5 z en ?\u0026gt; \u0026lt; -0 = o  r-C\"l ~~ m\no en - QO g\narm c: G')3:: rC\n:\n:\"-\" ..... z 5z ~ en DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 February 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: First Reading: Policy Revisions: IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements\nIAA - Professional Development Regulation Review: IAA-R Professional Development\nID-R - Student Schedules BACKGROUND: The Board of Education policies IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements and IAA - Professional Development require slight revisions in order to ensure compliance with Arkansas state statutes and Arkansas Department of Education Standards for Accreditation. Revisions to regulations IAA-R Professional Development and ID-R Student Schedules are required for compliance. RATIONALE: Little Rock School District Board of Education policies and regulations will be updated to ensure all are current, clear and compliant. FUNDING: None required. RECOMMENDATION: Board adoption is recommended for policies IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements and IAA - Professional Development. Board review is recommended for regulations IAA-R and ID-R. PREPARED BY: Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction  ?\u0026lt;  tD\n:cc mu, igz ,-m Cu, .... u, ~u, ~~ ~~ tD u, !D m .:I.:,: 5 m-\u0026lt; m\n:c m 0 C m !!l r\u0026gt; g z .\u0026gt;... 5z u, 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' 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 tho required 24 units for tho classes of 2002 and 2003\nor the required 26 units for the class of 2004 and after. 2. Diploma from any of the five high schools for completion of the Little Rock Scholars curriculum of 27 units for tho class of 2003\nor 28 units, including at least eight PreAdvanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses, for the class of 2004 and after. 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 21 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 NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) Units of credit will generally be earned in grades nine through twelve, except that one unit of Algebra I (or higher-level mathematics) and Level I (or higher level) of foreign language may be earned in grade eight. High school courses taken before grade eight will not satisfy a unit of credit toward graduation. (See policy IKEC for list of creditearning options.) Transfer Students 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. Senior-Year Enrollment Requirements Students participating in dual-credit courses with local colleges/universities during their senior year must be enrolled in high school courses at least half time for their senior year (four units of credit) or full-time during the fall semester in order to receive a diploma from a Little Rock School District high school. This enrollment standard is required regardless of how many credits a student may need to satisfy graduation requirements. (See IKEC-R1 for regulations governing dual-credit enrollments.) 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. ADE Seal 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). 2 \u0026gt;?\u0026lt;  a,\n,:, C me,, ig z ,-m c\"' -\"' 1z5!!\"J' -~ ~m a,\"' ~ m ii: \"ti 5 -m\u0026lt; m\n,:, m D C m !!l r, 0 0 z ~ 0z \"' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) Arkansas Scholars Seal NEPN CODE: IKF 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. Successfully completes 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 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 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) 3. 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 school, 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. Specific Course Requirements The following table specifies the required courses for graduation for each curriculum area. Revised: Revised : January 22 , 2004 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 4 )\u0026gt; ?\u0026lt;  Ill\n:oc:: mu, ~z ,- m .c..:.,:c\"n' oz!\"!J' '\u0026lt; ~~ Ill U\u0026gt; ~ m 31: \"C 5 m-\u0026lt; m\n:o m 0 c:: m !!l 0 0 0 z )\u0026gt; ..... 0 z V, \"TI z )\u0026gt; z (\"') \u0026gt;,- \"' High School Graduation Requirements Little Rock School District Required, Classes of 2004 and After Required, ACC Students 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 English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Enolish IV (ESL, Reoular, or AP). Oral Communications-1/2 unit Oral Communications-1/2 unit Communications IA (1/2 unit) Communications IA--one-half unit English Language Arts-1/2 unit One-half unit from any English, Journalism, or Communications course. Modern Grammar (1/2) is stronqly recommended. Mathematics--3 units Mathematics-3 units Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or Statistics Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or Statistics (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) Concepts of Geometry (ESL or Regular) or Statistics (ESL, Regular, or AP) will no longer Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) substitute for Algebra II for the Class of 2007. Effective for the Class of 2007, four (4) units of mathematics are required in grades 9-12. All students must take a mathematics course in arade 11 or 12 and comolete Aloebra II. Science--3 units Science-3 units Physics I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Physical Science or Physics I\nand Biology I\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One additional unit Chemistry I (ESL, Reqular, 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, Reqular, or AP) United States History (ESL, Reoular, or AP) 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 Technology--1 unit None One unit from any of the approved technology courses. Career Focus-3 units Career Focus-3 units I Al least three units from any of the approved Career Three units from any of the approved Career Focus programs. Focus oroqrams. 5 High School Graduation Requirements Little Rock School District (continued) Electives-6 units (5 units, effective for Class of Electives-3 units 2007) A fourth year of both science and social studies is encouraged, as are at least two units of foreign lanauaae. Total-26 units Total-21 units Although not required to do so, students graduating in 2004 through 2006 are encouraged to complete the requirements for the Class of 2007, especially the four units of mathematics in grades 9-12. 6  ?\u0026lt;  Cl) ::o:,c m\"' igz ,-m c\"' -\u0026lt; \"' c5 \"' ~~ ~m t11\"' !XI m .3.1,: 5 -m\u0026lt; m ::0:, m 0 C m !!l 0 8 z \u0026gt; -\u0026lt; 5 z \"' .., z \u0026gt; z (\") ~ \"' 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, Class of 2004 and After 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-1/2 unit Communications IA English Language Arts-1/2 unit Anv one-half unit from Enalish, Communications, or Journalism. Modern Grammar is stronolv encouraoed. Mathematics--4 units (in grades 9-12, class of 20071 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 Active Physics (ESL or Regular) or Physics I Pre-AP\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand 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 anv one foreion lanouaoe Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education IA Health and Safety--1/2 unit Health and Safetv Fine Arts-1 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music Technology-1 unit* One unit from anv of the approved technoloov courses. Career Focus-3 units* Three units from anv of the approved Career Focus programs. Electives-3 units Total-28 units *Students graduating an 2004 through 2006 are encouraged to take four units of mathematics an grades 9-12, although they are not required to do so since their plan only specified three units of mathematics. If they do choose to take the Class of 2007 plan, they may also reduce the requirements in Technology and Career Focus and have three electives instead of one. 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The Board of Education is committed to providing the best possible educational opportunities for all students in the District. The Board will, therefore, commit the necessary time and other resources to a comprehensive professional development program that will be driven primarily by student performance data and result in improved educational achievement and equity of outcomes for all students. The Board recognizes that the key to a quality professional development program is the establishment of an environment that facilitates and nurtures customer service, continuous learning, data-driven decisions, and continuous improvement at every level of the District. By definition a learning community member assumes responsibility for his or her own growth. The District, however, has the responsibility to encourage, facilitate, and provide a full range of learning opportunities, including job-embedded learning, study groups and seminars, workshops, informational or awareness sessions, in-depth study, access to resources and distance learning, in-classroom coaching and follow-up, tuition reimbursement for university courses, conference attendance, participation on various committees, and so forth. Required Professional Development As per State Board of Education regulations, all certified employees of the District will complete a minimum of sixty (60) required approved hours of professional development annually. The professional development calendar begins July 1 and ends June 30. Any excess professional development hours earned in a given year cannot be carried over to the next school year. An employee who misses any part of regularly scheduled professional development activities for any reason (such as sickness) must make up that time in other professional development activities so that the sixty (60) required hours are earned by each certified employee of the District prior to June 30. Approved professional development activities must relate to one or more of the following areas: content (Pre K - 12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/ leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\ninstructional technology\nprinciples of learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand build ing a collaborative learning community.  At least six (6) of the sixty (60) hours of required professional development will be in the area of educational technology. At least two (2) hours for teachers and  ?\u0026lt;  tD\n:oc mtJJ igz ,-m ctJ\u0026gt; -,\u0026lt;JI c5 (JJ ~~ ~m tD (JJ !D m :I: \"'t\u0026gt;  m m\n:o m 0 C m !!l !\"' 0 0 z ~ 0 z (JI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA (continued) three (3) hours for administrators will be in the area of parent involvement strategies.  Approved professional development activities that occur during the instructional day or outside the employee's annual contract days may apply toward the sixty (60) hour minimum professional development requirement.  For each administrator, the sixty (60)-hour professional development requirement will include training in data disaggregation, instructional leadership and fiscal management  A three-hour graduate-level, college credit course will count as twelve (12) hours of professional development. Professional development will be awarded only when the college credit is related to a teacher's current teaching assignment or is part of the requirements for the teacher to obtain additional certification in a subject matter that has been designated by the ADE as having critical shortage of teachers. No more than half of the required sixty (60) hours of professional development time may be met through college credit hours An effective professional development program which results in improved student learning includes, but is not limited to, the following characteristics:  has adequate financial resources, space, and time to facilitate effectiveness\n is designed in collaboration with potential participants\n is primarily driven by needs identified through the analysis of student performance data and needs identified in the school improvement plans\n includes performance evaluations of staff both to enhance strong performance and to address weaknesses\n is designed to reflect research-based best practice, to be subject-specific and site-specific as often as possible, and to align with the professional development standards established by the National Staff Development Council\n2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA (continued)  incorporates the requirements of the State Board of Education relative to professional development activities for certified staff\n is evaluated annually for its impact on student learning. Definitions: Advocacy/leadership means building the capacity for shared visions and system improvement in order to improve student learning. Assessment means measuring and judging student performance and achievement relative to the learning standards. Building a collaborative learning community means understanding community, sensitivity, diversity, and effective communication of high expectations. Cognitive research means research about learning and application to practice. Content (PreK-12) means increasing knowledge in a discipline or domain. Educational technology means the use of any technology to enhance instruction, learning and management. Instructional strategies mean techniques or methods for teaching students. Mentoring/coaching means increasing capacity for coaching and mentoring others to assist in growth of instructional skills and effectiveness of colleagues. Principles of learning/development stages means understanding and applying knowledge about how humans learn from birth through adulthood in order to maximize achievement. Professional development means a coordinated set of planned learning activities for teachers and administrators which are standards-based and continuous. Professional development will result in individual, school-wide, and system-wide improvement designed to insure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state academic standards. Approved professional development will be linked to the local school's improvement plan, demonstrate research-based best practice, and be subject-specific and site-specific as often as possible. 3 !J' m .31.:,: 5 m-\u0026lt; m :,0 m 0 C: m !!l ~ g z .).\u0026gt;. i5 z V, .,., z )\u0026gt; z (\") ,\u0026gt;- v, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA (continued) Standards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment means defining what students should know and be able to do at acceptable performance levels and organizing curriculum and instruction to bring about desired learning results. Supervision means gaining knowledge and skills in instructional management in order to improve the quality of staff members and staff performance. Systemic change process means understanding changes across an entire system such as culture, governance, community, roles, rules, responsibility, etc., to improve the education results and increase student achievement. Revised: Adopted: February 22, 2001 Legal References: A.C.A. 6-17-701 through A.C.A. 6-17-703 A.C.A. 6-15-1001 through AC.A. 6-15-1006 Act 603 of 2003 Standards for Accreditation 15.04, 15.04.1, 15.04.2 Cross References: Arkansas Department of Education Regulations Governing Professional Development and the LRSD Strategic Plan 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA-R PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Required Professional Development Hours Workshops (provided by the LRSD) and conferences (professional leave) conducted during the contract day will count towards the sixty (60) required professional development hours as long as they meet the focus areas for professional development required by the Arkansas Department of Education. A minimum of five days devoted to professional development activities will be included in the District's annual calendar for staff. Participants in District-sponsored professional development workshops will have their hours recorded if they sign in at each session and remain in the session for the designated time. Staff members who do not attend the full sessions designated on the District calendar for professional development must make up the time in order to earn the required 60 hours mandated by the Arkansas Department of Education. Principals of individual schools are charged with the development of procedures to account for full attendance at all sessions. Approval of professional development hours will be based on the requirements within the ACT AAP State Rules, Board priorities, student achievement data, growth plan resulting from the Professional Teachers Appraisal System (PTAS), and the local school's improvement plan. The participant is responsible for obtaining and submitting the necessary documentation of professional leave hours to the Professional Development Department for recording purposes. Professional Development Information Website http://profdev.lrsd .org Employees may access the District's professional development information website for information related to upcoming professional development opportunities, the LRSD professional development calendar, salary data, degree information, transcript information, and individual employee professional development records beginning with the 2001-2002 school year. NCLB Professional Development Paraprofessional Requirements According to NCLB requirements, all Paraprofessionals must complete a minimum of six hours of professional development on an annual basis. In some cases the job assignment may require additional professional development hours to comply with federal regulations. The District will provide the professional development sessions for Paraprofessionals. \u0026gt;?\u0026lt;  ID\n:o C: mu, !S z ,- m C: u, .... u, ~ u, z~ '\u0026lt; ~~ ID u, !JI m .:,I:, 5 m-\u0026lt; m\n:o m 0 C: m !!l ,\u0026gt; g z .\u0026gt;... 5z u, .., z \u0026gt;z (') ,\u0026gt;- (/) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA-R (continued) Use of the School Day for Professional Development To the extent possible, professional development activities should be conducted outside the school day in order to preserve the integrity of the instructional program. Participants may choose from salary credit or stipends to reimburse them for their time. Salary Credit Salary credit can be awarded only for professional development activities that are at least three (3) hours in length or more and are beyond the participant's regular contractual hours. The amount of salary credit awarded for professional development activities will be based on one (1) clock hour of salary credit for each clock hour scheduled for activity. The acquired clock hours of salary credit are accumulative and will be converted to semester hours of credit on the salary scale at the rate of fifteen (15) hours for each semester hour. Teachers will be limited to six (6) semester hours of salary credit per year. Any extra clock hours will be carried over to the next school year. Salary credit may be received only one time for participating in a particular course\nno salary credit will be awarded for repeating a course. Salary credit will be given only when a participant attends the entire time designated. If a course is scheduled for more than one session, the participant must attend all sessions and fulfill the course requirements to receive salary credit. If a stipend is paid, salary credit will not be awarded. If a professional development activity occurs outside the District, the participant is responsible for obtaining and submitting the necessary documentation to the Professional Development Department for credit. Clock hours for salary credit must be approved by the Professional Development prior to taking the course. Eligible credit for degrees or hours earned through a college or university during the preceding summer will be given during the current school year if a teacher presents a written statement concerning such work to the Human Resource Office by September 1, such statement to be supported by an official transcript sent to this office by October 1. Upon receipt of such statement by the Human Resource Office, a revised contract will be drawn up, and the second pay check will be based upon this adjusted amount. Stipends At times the District will pay stipends to teachers at the negotiated rate for participation in high priority professional development activities that occur outside contractual times, 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA-R (continued) i.e., after-school, Saturdays, or summer days. Participants who elect to receive a stipend for participation in professional development may not also receive salary credit. Tuition Reimbursement The District may make available tuition reimbursement programs for teachers to become certified or endorsed in areas where there are shortages and/or to meet other District priorities, e.g., English-as-a-Second Language endorsement, gifted/talented endorsement, or instructional technology. Teachers who receive prior approval to participate in such programs will be reimbursed only for tuition for university courses. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification LRSD teachers are encouraged to participate in the certification process established by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. The Professional Development Department will annually provide to principals copies of the Arkansas Department of Education Regulations Governing Incentives for National Board for Professional Teaching Standards for dissemination to teachers and will provide appropriate District-level support to those teachers seeking certification. Arkansas Education Association (AEA} Days The LRSD designates the two days for the AEA conference as two of the five required days of professional development in the year's calendar. Staff members who do not choose to participate in the AEA conference must attend a District-sponsored workshop on those two days. Otherwise they will be expected to make up the two days in order to acquire the 60 required hours of professional development mandated by the Arkansas Department of Education. Pathwise/lnduction Program for NoviceTeachers and Administrators The District will administer an Induction Program for Beginning Teachers and Administrators. School Improvement Plans Each school must include in its School Improvement Plan a professional development plan designed to build the capacity of the staff to achieve the plan's goals and objectives. 3 !D m 3.,1,: 5 m-\u0026lt; m ~ D C: m !!l ~ 0 0 z ~ 0 z (/) p \"Tl z )\u0026gt; z () \u0026gt;,... (/) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA-R (continued) Monitoring and Evaluation The criterion for evaluating the impact of professional development will be the improvement by student achievement on the state criterion-referenced assessments and other related indicators defined by ACTAAP. Revised: Date: January 25, 2001 Cross References: Arkansas Department of Education Regulations Governing Professional Development\nArkansas Department of Education Regulations Governing Financial Incentives for National Board of Professional Teaching Standards, PN Agreement\nStrategic Plan\nCampus Leadership Plan Handbook\nGuidelines to Writing School Improvement Plans 4 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/8 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). 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 requ ired 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 Proficient/ 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.) \u0026gt; ?\u0026lt;  a,\n,\n:, C: m\"' ~z ,-m C--,:e\"n' c5\"' z~ '\u0026lt; ~i:i a,\"' !D m :I: ~ ~ m\n,\n:, m 0 C: m !!l 0 0 0 z ~ 5 z \"' .., z )\u0026gt; z (\") \u0026gt;,- \"' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ID-R ( continued) 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\nMathematics Science Social Studies Music or Visual Art Physical Education At least 2 hours daily at grades 4-5 At least one hour daily Daily instruction\nmay be interdisciplinary 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 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ID-R (continued) 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: Revised: December 18, 2003 Date: October 21 , 1999 Cross References: Board of Education Policies and Regulations, IBA, IBA-R, ID and IMP-R 3 !JI m .!,I:, 5 m-\u0026lt; m ill 0 C: m !!l r\u0026gt; g z \u0026gt; -\u0026lt; 0z (J) .., z \u0026gt;z (\") \u0026gt;,... (J) 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 ParenUGuardian Date Approved/Disapproved (circle one) Signature of Principal Date 4 Sample Pre-K Schedule Time Monday Tuesday 7:30- Arrival/Centers Arrival/Centers 8:00 Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Including Math, Including Math, Science Social Science Social Studies, Art Studies, Art 8:00- Circle Time Circle Time 8:15 Explanation and Explanation and Directions for today's Directions for activities todav's activities 8:15- P.E Music 8:45 8:45- Snack Time Snack Time 9:30 Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Arts Arts Choice of Centers Choice of Centers Math, Science Social Math, Science Studies, Art Social Studies, Art 9:30- Outside Play: Outside Play: 10:00 Including Including Gross Motor, Art, and Gross Motor, Art, Dramatic Play and Dramatic Play Activities Activities 10:00- Circle Time Circle Time 10:45 Shared Reading Shared Reading Transition Activities Transition Activities Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Hands Hands 10:45- Lunch Lunch 11 :15 Social Skills Social Skills Language Language Develooment Develooment 11: 15- Outside Play Outside Play 11:45 Gross Motor Gross Motor Art Art Dramatic Play Dramatic Play 11 :45- Language Arts/ Language Arts/ 12:15 Shared Reading Shared Reading Transition Activities Transition Activities Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Hands Hands 12:15- Story Time/Rest Story Time/Rest 1 :15 Period Period 1 :15- Snack Time Snack Time 2:15 Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Arts Arts Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Including Math, Including Math, Science, Social Science, Social Studies, and Art Studies, and Art 2:15- Circle Time Circle Time 2:35 Story Story Review of Review of Activities/Closure Activities/Closure Dismissal Dismissal Wednesday Arrival/Centers Choice of Centers: Including Math, Science Social Studies, Art Circle Time Explanation and Directions for todav's activities Library/Guidance Snack Time Small Group Inst. Literacy/Language Arts Choice of Centers Math, Science Social Studies, Art Outside Play: Including Gross Motor, Art, and Dramatic Play Activities Circle Time Shared Reading Transition Activities Bathroom/Wash Hands Lunch Social Skills Language Develooment Outside Play Gross Motor Art Dramatic Plav Language Arts/ Shared Reading Transition Activities Bathroom/Wash Hands Story Time/Rest Period Snack Time Small Group Inst. Literacy/Language Arts Choice of Centers: Including Math, Science , Social Studies, and Art Circle Time Story Review of Activities/Closure Dismissal 5 ID-R: Attachment 2 Thursday Friday Arrival/Centers Arrival/Centers Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Including Math, Including Math, Science Social Science Social Studies, Art Studies, Art Circle Time Circle Time Explanation and Explanation and Directions for Directions for today's activities today's activities P.E Music Snack Time Snack Time Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Arts Arts Choice of Centers Choice of Centers Math, Science Math, Science Social Studies, Art Social Studies, Art Outside Play: Outside Play: Including Including Gross Motor, Art, Gross Motor, Art, and Dramatic Play and Dramatic Play Activities Activities Circle Time Circle Time Shared Reading Shared Reading Transition Activities Transition Activities Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Hands Hands Lunch Lunch Social Skills Social Skills Language Language Develooment Develooment Outside Play Outside Play Gross Motor Gross Motor Art Art Dramatic Plav Dramatic Plav Language Arts/ Language Arts/ Shared Reading Shared Reading Transition Activities Transition Activities Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Hands Hands Story Time/Rest Story Time/Rest Period Period Snack Time Snack Time Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Arts Arts Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Including Math, Including Math, Science, Social Science, Social Studies, and Art Studies, and Art Circle Time Circle Time Story Story Review of Review of Activities/Closure Activities/Closure Dismissal .Dismissal \u0026gt;?\u0026lt;  a,\nn C: men is z ,-m C-,:e Cnl\u0026gt; i5 Cl\u0026gt; ':\"~ ~i:l a, Cl\u0026gt; !Jl m .3.1,: 5 m-\u0026lt; m\nn m g m !!l ,:-, 8 z ~ 5 z en ,:::, ..., z \u0026gt;z n ,\u0026gt;- en DATE: February 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 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, 2004 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 9, 2004 for EYE are consid~~~ intern teachers. PREPARED BY: Beverly William~irector of Human Resources !D m :I: ~ 5 m-\u0026lt; m ~ 0 C: m !!l ,, 8 z ~ 5 z (/) .., z \u0026gt;z (\") ,\u0026gt;- (/) Personnel Changes Page2 February 24, 2005 NAME START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees Acre, Nancy Principal/ 6-11-87 69-20 79692.00 Reason: Retirement TERRY 2-24-05 ADC11 Logan, Jacob American History/ 9-1-03 1-02 30617.00 Reason: Personal MABELVALE MIDDLE 1-17-05 SPE925 Reed, Martha Kindergarten/ 8-11-04 1-01 30040.00 Reason: Accepted another BRADY 1-28-05 K925 position Robertson, Angela Spanish/ 8-9-00 1-09 38127.00 Reason: Personal GIBBS 3-9-05 TCH925 Whaley, Andress English/ 8-16-93 6-12 49277.00 Reason: No reason given HALL 1-13-05 TCH925 New Certified Employees Akdamar, Lynn Elementary IV/ 1-18-05 1-01 30040.00 WAKEFIELD TCH925 annual 14550.63 prorated Austin, Lori Speech Pathologist/ 1-18-05 62-6 45576.00 MABEL VALE SPE925 annual ELEMENTARY 21066.25 prorated Farrar, Neoma Elementary II/ 1-18-05 1-01 30040.00 CHICOT TCH925 annual 14550.63 prorated Gault. Amanda Special Education/ 1-24-05 4-14 48439.00 STEPHENS SPE925 annual 22958.07 prorated Howard-Klein, Risie Biology/ 1-17-05 4-09 42662.00 CENTRAL TCH925 annual 20664.41 prorated Personnel Changes Page3 February 24, 2005 START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY Key, Shawn Spanish/ 1-18-05 4-06 39196.00 J. A. FAIR TCH925 annual 18985.56 prorated Sandel, Cathryn Gifted and Talented/ 1-10-05 4-03 35730.00 ROCKEFELLER G\u0026amp;T925 annual 18237.19 prorated Van Alstyne, Vicki Special Education/ 1-03-05 1-10 39283.00 FRANKLIN TCH925 annual 21073.69 prorated Educational Leave (Article 14 -Section C) Carson, Rene' Hire Date: 8-27-74 Length of Educational Leave 1 year (2005-2006) Approved leave as recommended by the Superintendent Armstrong, Hayley - medical leave without pay (effective 1-3-05) Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Employees Boyd, Alfred Custodian/ 4-3-01 31-7 17388.00 Reason: Accepted another CENTRAL 11-30-04 CUS12 position Curry, Tangela Care/ 9-17-04 3-08 8.85 Reason: Accepted another CARE 1-28-05 CARE per hour position Haley, Leslie Custodian 6-22-87 34-18 26412.00 Reason: Retirement WOODRUFF 1-31-05 CUS12 Hockersmith, Kimberly Secretary/ 7-28-94 46-20 40116.00 Reason: Personal HUMAN RESOURCES 2-11-05 CLK12 ~~ c~o~ \u0026lt;- (J) o- c:Z\n:o C'l Z\n:o\nr:m ~~ --\u0026lt;\n:o\n,,\n(J) \u0026gt;?\u0026lt;  tD ~~ ~z .--m C: (J) -\nrJ\u0026gt; ~(J) ~\n~~ tD (J) ?' m .\n.r.:, 5 -m\u0026lt; m\n:o m 0 C: m !!l ,, C 0 z \u0026gt; --\u0026lt; 5 z (J) !=' .., z \u0026gt;z (\") \u0026gt; r- (J) Personnel Changes Page4 February 24, 2005 NAME Hubbard, Myia Reason: No reason given Hokes, Henry Reason: Deceased Jackson, Andrea Reason: Resigned without notice Paige, Cynthia Reason: No reason given Williams, Jacquelyn Reason: No reason given Akins, Kharisty Bridgeford, Wanda Cook, Deshawn Davidson, Katherine Davis. Ebony START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE Care/ 8-9-04 CARE 1-13-05 Custodian/ 2-15-93 PARKVIEW 12-9-04 Care/ 12-10-02 CARE 1-7-05 Care/ 3-1-93 CARE 1-13-05 Care/ 8-23-01 CARE 12-17-04 New Non-Certified Employees Care/ 1-31-05 CARE Custodian/ 1-7-05 ROMINE Custodian/ 1-3-05 KING Bookkeeper/ 1-24-05 CHILD NUTRITION Instructional Aide) 1-18-05 BRADY SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 1-02 7.13 CARE per hour 31-15 22080.00 CUS12 1-04 7.41 CARE per hour 2-17 10.01 CARE per hour 1-06 7.74 CARE per hour 2-01 7.55 CARE per hour 31-01 5689.50 CUS925 annual 3030.28 prorated 31-01 11379.00 CUS925 annual 6307.92 prorated 45-17 35592.00 AN12 annual 16357.17 prorated 33-16 16109.00 INA925 annual 7923.89 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 February 24, 2005 ~ ~ START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL :,.~ co \u0026lt;- \u0026lt;J) NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY o- C: z ::,, C, z::,, 31: m ~ ~ --\u0026lt;::,,\n,,\nFarmer, Dennis Custodian/ 1-10-05 31-07 6808.00 \u0026lt;J) DUNBAR CUS925 annual 3589.00 prorated Gary, Angela Care/ 1-24-05 2-03 7.85 \u0026gt;?\u0026lt;  a, ::,, C: CARE CARE per hour mu, !Sz ,-m C: \u0026lt;J) .... \u0026lt;J) Holland, Robin Instructional Aide/ 1-18-05 33-03 5795.02 ~\u0026lt;J) z!!l CHICOT INA925 annual  ?i 2850.52 ~m a, \u0026lt;J) prorated Hunt, Emma Child Nutrition/ 1-10-05 3-01 9350.00 PARKVIEW FSH550 annual 4926.34 prorated ~ m 3C Jeffers, Ferrell Instructional Aide/ 1-04-05 33-09 13070.00 .,...,. 0 DODD INA925 annual m-\u0026lt; 7064.86 m ::,, m prorated 0 C: m \u0026lt;..J..) Jordan, Leon Custodian/ 1-5-05 31-01 14532.00 Forest Heights CUS12 annual 7358.76 prorated Lovelace, Corey Bus Driver Aide/ 1-24-05 2-04 29760.00 TRANSPORTATION BUSDRV annual 0 15323.23 C 0 prorated z .\u0026gt;... 0 z Mason, Shanika Care/ 1-31 -05 2-03 7.85 \u0026lt;J) CARE CARE per hour McDonald, James Care/ 1-31 -05 3-05 8.38 CARE CARE per hour McFee, Sarah Care/ 2-7-05 2-07 14532.00 CARE CARE annual !=' 7915.30 .., prorated z \u0026gt;z C) \u0026gt;,... \u0026lt;J) Personnel Changes Page6 February 24, 2005 NAME Milam, Lisa Mitchell, Rashumda Moore, Tamalyn Moser, Matthew Portlock, Douglas Reynolds, Carl Robinson, Barbara Robinson, Kamesha Robinson, Onetha Sample-Harper, Michelle Spencer, Steven White, Tremayne START DATE/ POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE Care/ 1-24-05 CARE Care/ 1-24-05 CARE Care/ 1-24-05 CARE Security Officer/ 1-4-05 MCCLELLAN Bus Driver/ 1-24-05 TRANSPORTATION Maintenance/ 1-18-05 FACILITY SERVICES Care/ 1-24-05 CARE Care/ 1-24-05 CARE Care/ 1-31-05 CARE Care/ 1-24-05 CARE Maintenance/ 1-24-05 FACILITY SERVICES Instructional Aide/ 1-24-05 DODD SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 1-04 7.41 CARE per hour 2-02 7.70 CARE per hour 2-02 7.70 CARE per hour 36-10 15463.00 SOFR9 annual 8411.19 prorated 2-01 9481.00 BUSDRV annual 4633.97 prorated 49-07 29760.00 MAINT annual 14183.49 prorated 1-07 7.89 CARE per hour 2-03 7.85 CARE per hour 2-04 8.01 CARE per hour 2-02 7.70 CARE per hour 49-07 29760.00 MAINT annual 13676.94 prorated 33-03 10934.00 INA925 annual 5141.94 prorated LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: February 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Qualified Zone Academy Bond Application BACKGROUND: Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZAB), created under Section 226 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, are unique financing instruments available to public schools meeting the following eligibility requirements: located in an Enterprise Zone or Empowerment Community\nOR at least 35% of the students at the school site are eligible for free or reduced-cost lunches\nAND a partnership with a private entity is entered into whereby curriculum is enhanced, graduation and employment rates are increased and students are prepared for college and the workforce\nAND private entity donations of not less than 10% of the total amount of the issue must be received (to be used as matching funds). The District previously has been approved by the Arkansas Department of Education for three (3) separate QZAB issues, totaling $5,410,506. The proceeds were used to finance a portion of the cost of energy efficient lighting systems installed throughout the District. Even though the current QZABs have an interest cost to the District of 0%, the holder of the QZAB is still allowed annual federal income tax credits while the debt is outstanding. These credits function as \"interest\" on the debt and are intended to compensate the holder for lending money to the issuer. The current QZABs are financed over ten (10) years by mandatory sinking fund payments into deposit accounts maintained at the financial institutions holding the QZABs. The District receives a guaranteed rate of earned interest on these deposits which, when combined with the cumulative deposit amounts, is designed to be sufficient to repay the entire face amount of the bonds at maturity. The balances in these sinking fund accounts at June 30, 2004 totaled $1 ,177,638 making the net debt $4,232,868 as of the same date, of which $3,218,430 is the LRSD portion and $1,014,438 represents the bank's guaranteed interest. RATIONALE: The District is seeking permIssIon to file a QZAB application with the Arkansas Department of Education against the State allocation pool, which totals $10,830,000 for !:ti m :I: ~ 5 ~ m\n,o 2l C m ~ !\"' 0 0 :z: ... i5 :z: en 2005. The proposed application for $5,870,000 would fund seven (7) heat and air projects as shown on the attached schedule. In-kind matching funds will be provided by hours donated to each of the seven schools through the ViPS program and Johnson Controls, Inc. A representative of Stephens Inc., the District's financial advisor, will attend the Board meeting to discuss the financing process of the proposed QZAB application. FUNDING: To be determined upon approval by ADE and sale of the financing instrument. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the attached resolution, allowing the administration to proceed with the application for QZAB funding . PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen, Manager Financial Services Little Rock School District - Qualified Zone Academy Bond Application Data Qualification of School Facility LEA# School Site School Address Henderson Middle 70% Free/Reduced 401 John Barrow Rd. School 6001013 Lunch Little Rock, AR 72205 57% Free/Reduced 1100 Wright Ave. Dunbar Middle School 6001007 Lunch Little Rock, AR 72206 Mabelvale Elementary 88% Free/Reduced 9401 Mabelvale Cut-Off School 6001057 Lunch Mabelvale, AR 72103 37% Free/Reduced 1000 E. Roosevelt Rd. Mann Middle School 6001003 Lunch Little Rock, AR 72206 Booker Elementary 63% Free/Reduced 2016 Barber St. School 6001006 Lunch Little Rock, AR 72206 Fair Park Elementary 73% Free/Reduced 616 N. Harrison St. School 6001023 Lunch Little Rock, AR 72205 Pulaski, AR 1500 South Park Central High School 6001001 Empowerment Zone Little Rock, AR 72202 Totals SlVl:\u0026gt;NVNl:l a SNOllVNOO \":) lS3n03H 33AOldW3 '8 Qualified Site Project Description Budget Replace all 40-yr old HVAC system, except chiller, boiler \u0026amp; cooling tower $3,750,000.00 Replace chillers, boilers - convert to HW\n50-ton AHU for Auditorium $278,800.00 Replace 23 pkg rooftop HVAC units and 6 furnaces/ condensing units \u0026amp; ductwork $220,000.00 Media Ctr- New Pkg Unit or Splits\nHVAC for Cafeteria\nReplace existing classroom HVAC units in original section of building $382,400.00 Replace furnace coils $239,560.00 Replace chiller \u0026amp; boiler $79,480.00 Replace air cooled chillers, fan coil units\ngym boiler, and boiler at Quigley Field $919,760.00 $5,870,000.00 1N3WNHnorav nx S}IHVW3H ~NISOl:\u0026gt; 'IX RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the \"District\") proposes to create Qualified Zone Academies within the District designed to enhance the academic curriculum, increase graduation and employment rates and better prepare students for the rigors of college and the workforce (the \"Academy'')\nWHEREAS, the District proposes to make improvements to certain facilities located in the Academy by acquiring and installing HV AC equipment (the \"Project\")\nand WHEREAS, the District proposes to obtain funds to accomplish the Project from issuing either Second-Lien Construction Bonds (Qualified Zone Academy Bonds) (the \"Bonds\") or Post Dated Warrants to be issued in the approximate principal amount of $5,870,000 (collectively, the \"Debt\"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DISTRICT: Section 1. That the Superintendent of Schools and the President of the Board of Directors are hereby authorized and instructed to prepare and file an application with the Arkansas Department of Education (the \"Department\") for approval of the Academy. Section 2. That the District shall receive written commitments from private entities (which may include commitments from Volunteers In Public Schools) to make qualified contributions having a present value as of the date of issuance of the Debt of not less than ten percent of the proceeds of the Debt (the \"Qualified Contributions\"). Section 3. That the Qualified Contributions shall be used solely in connection with the Academy. Section 4. That in connection with the sale and issuance of the Debt, the District hereby authorizes Stephens Inc. to serve as financial advisor in connection with the structuring and sale of the Debt. Section 5. That the District hereby authorizes Stephens Inc. to file an application with the Department to issue the Bonds. Section 6. That the fees paid to Stephens Inc. will be subject to approval of the Department, if necessary, and the District and will be paid only if the District issues the Debt. Section 7. That if the Department approves only a portion of the Debt for the Academy, the Superintendent of Schools may explore other funding options to complete the Project. CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the above District, certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 24th day of February, 2005. The Resolution appears in the official minutes of the meeting which are in my custody. At the time of the meeting the duly elected ( or appointed), qualified and serving members of the Board and their respective votes on the adoption of the Resolution were as follows: Director Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Dr. Katherine Mitchell Bryan Day H. Baker Kurrus Tony Rose Sue Strickland Vote (Aye, Nay, Abstain or Absent) I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all respects according to law\nthat to the extent required by law due and proper notice of the meeting was given to the members of the Board and to the public\nthat the meeting was open to the public\nthat a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting\nthat all other requirements and proceedings under the law incident to the proper adoption and passage of the Resolution have been duly fulfilled, carried out and otherwise observed\nand that I am authorized to execute this Certificate. CERTIFIED under my hand and seal of the District this 24th day of February, 2005. Secretary (SEAL) ~ ~ ~p co oc.... en c:Z\no C\u0026gt; z\no ii: m mil: Z  ....\no ::,,\nen !D m ii: ~ 5 m-\u0026lt; m\no m 0 C: m !!l 0 0 0 z ~ 5z CJ) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: February 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Employee Request to Conduct Business with the District BACKGROUND: AR law 6-24-101: 119 requires full open disclosure before a school district employee may sell, lease, provide services or enter into a contract with a school district where he/she is employed if the employee has knowledge that he or she is directly interested in the contract. Part of the disclosure is for all employees to complete a Conflict of Interest form provided by the district. If an employee declares a conflict on the form, the Procurement department will not approve their company as an approved vendor unless the employee appears before the school board explaining why their particular vendor circumstance should be considered an exception. In the event the Board, by resolution, approves the employee's company as a district vendor, the district may contract with the employee's company. At the 12/18/03 regular Board Meeting Ms. Virginia (Jennie) Cooper, owner of Soccer Plus, was on the Board agenda requesting to conduct business with the District. The Board tabled her request. Subsequently, the Board approved at its 4/22/04 regular Board meeting regulation GBEA-R (attached) concerning employees selling to the District. Ms. Cooper has asked the Board to reconsider her case: Ms. Virginia Cooper, owner of Soccer Plus, is the boys soccer coach at Central High School. As a coach, Ms. Cooper would be in a position to both set the specification and choose the vendor for the products needed for the Central soccer program. She also wishes to sell to other high schools in the District but would have no influence over specifications or vendor selection for these schools. Expected purchases would be less than $5,000 annually. Ms. Cooper has completed the Contract Disclosure Form (attached) required by the Arkansas Department of Education. !\"\u0026gt; g z ~ 5 z CJ) ..., z \u0026gt;z C\") \u0026gt;.... CJ) RATIONALE: A resolution (template provided by the Arkansas Department of Education) approving Soccer Plus as a District vendor must be signed by the Board before the District can conduct business with this company in accordance with Arkansas law and District regulation. FUNDING: None RECOMMENDATION: In accordance with Board Policy GBEA and its regulations, the Administration recommends that the Board make a determination regarding the attached Resolution. PREPARED BY: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement RESOLUTION Act 1599 WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors met in a regular, open, and properly-called board meeting on February 24, 2005 at LRSD Administration Offices in Little Rock, AR\nand WHEREAS,_ members were present, a quorum was declared by the chair\nand WHEREAS, Ms. Virginia Cooper, a non-administrative employee of the LRSD, has declared a direct financial interest in Soccer Plus\nand, WHEREAS, Ms. Cooper would like to bid on a competitive basis, through Soccer Plus, for soccer uniforms and equipment purchases by the LRSD\nand, WHEREAS, the Board, after serious consideration, moved to approve possible business transactions with Soccer Plus\nand, WHEREAS, any possible business transactions are approved with the following restrictions and/or limitations: Athletic Director review of specifications, competitive bidding and only where Soccer Plus is low bid received\nNOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby declared to be the intent of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to approve Soccer Plus as a District vendor for possible future business transactions. Superintendent Board President Date Date Attest: !\"' 8 z ~ 0z Cl) .., z \u0026gt;z n ,\u0026gt;... Cl) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBEA - R CONFLICT OF INTEREST - Employees selling to the District The LRSD contracts for goods and services in conformance with statutory ethics laws and, in addition, in a manner that will avoid any conflict of interest or the appearance thereof. Accordingly, the Board will approve employees as District vendors under the statutory exception provisions only when it is clearly in the best interest of the District. General Prohibitions and Guidelines for Statutory Exceptions: In general, except as provided below, it is a breach of statutory ethical standards for an employee to contract with the District if the employee has knowledge that he or she is directly interested in the contract. The Board by exception may under unusual and limited circumstances approve an employee's business as a District vendor if the Board determines that the potential vendor relationship is in the best interest of the District. In such cases, the Board will document the approval by written resolution after fully disclosing the reasons justifying the potential vendor relationship in an open meeting in conformance with AR law. Following are the guidelines for these exceptions: I. No exceptions will be allowed for District Administrators (defined as Director-level and above) who are directly or indirectly interested in a contract since these individuals are in District-wide decision making positions. In addition, any employee on a District Administrative salary schedule is prohibited from conducting business with fami ly members. 2. District Administrator's family members who have a financial interest in a business as defined by AR law may contract with the District only after appearing before the Board of Directors explaining why their particular vendor circumstance should be considered unusual and limited. In the event the Board by resolution approves the business as a District vendor, the District may contract with the family member's company for transactions of any amount for a fiscal year provided the services/commodities are procured on a competitive basis and where the family member company's offer is the lowest received. However, the ADE must first have approved the District resolution before any contract will be valid or enforceable. 3. Under no circumstances will it be authorized for the District to do business with an employee when the employee regardless of their salary schedule placement or position has the ability to set the specifications for purchase and choose and/or recommend the vendor. 4. Non-Administrative employees (defined as any employee below Director-level) who are directly interested in a contract may conduct business with the District only after appearing before the Board of Directors explaining why their particular vendor circumstance should be considered unusual and limited. In the event the Board by resolution approves the employee as a District vendor, the District may contract with the employees company: a. for transactions totaling up to $5,000 for a fiscal year provided the services/commodities are procured on a compet1t1\\'e basis and where the employee company's offer is the lo\\\\'est received or\nb. for transacuons expected to exceed S5,000 for a fi cal year pro\\'lded the ser\\1ces commod1t1es are procured on a compe11l1\\e basis and \\I here the employee compan) 's offer is the lo\\\\'e t received. HO\\\\'e\\er, the ADE mu t first ha\\e appro\\ed the D1s1r1ct re oluuon before any contract 11 ill be 1alid or enforceable or: c. \\I here competll1\\'e quot111g b1dd111g 1s not practical regardless of dollar amount due to the nature of the ser11ce or comrnod1t) (sole source) prol'lded the ADE has first appro\\ed the D1stnct resoluuon in those cases expected to exceed $5,000. Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-24-101 :119 CONTRACT DISCLOSURE FORM Name of Public Educational Entity: Name of Person Disclosing Transaction: \\)1 ~A\n.,\u0026lt;\u0026amp;A .... I G2, ~b?.__ Note: Fully complete this form and return to the administration office. NO TRANSACTION OR SERVICE MAY BE RENDERED UNTIL THIS FORM HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND APPROVED. Act 1599 of 2001 requires FULL and COMPLETE DISCLOSURE of transactions with public educational entities. KNOWINGLY FAILING to FULLY DISCLOSE pertinent information relating to a transaction could result in criminal felony charges. I am a an Board Member Administrator of the ublic educational entit . L Mailing Address City State Home Telephone: 001 z.2..-'-I (.e[p f~ Work Telephone: Nature of transaction subject to disclosure and a9proval: ~----------------- 70 Se-tL Soa::.v z.~ f ~ 1\n, '-ftce 1,,~s D Estimated dollar amount of transactions with public educational entity for ENTIRE school year: Check ONE: DI have a financial interest in the transaction with the public educational entity. uA family member has a financial interest in the transaction with the public educational entity. . J80TH a family member and I have a financial interest in the transaction with the public educational entity. Nature of financial interest: (State how you and/or family members are financially interested in the transaction): . Justification for Approval (State reason why you believe the transactions are in the best interest of the public educational entity: state the unusual circumstances involved.) ~ P~us LL:e. 0-(L.., ~ 1o ~ a_ CL,, l.tfUYv1 Check here if Emergenc~ Transaction as defined by Section 9 of Act 1599 of 2001 P~EASE ATTACH ANY OTHER A::JDITIONAL INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTS YOU BELIEVE ARE ECESSARY FOR A FULL, COMPLETE, AND ACCURATE DISCLOSURE OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TRANSACTIONS. SIGNATURE: Vu~) e, Lft\u0026gt;fP ~ DATE: Wolos-l ~~ ~p co oc.... en c::Z\n:c C) Z\n:c :1:m !:ll~ --\u0026lt;\n:c :,,\nen fl 8 z ~ 0z en CONTRACT DISCLOSURE FORM FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: DalecomgF= School Official 's Signa z__/ l \\/ o5 Telephone Number Local Board Action: OAPPROVED DISAPPROVED FAX Number Date PRESENTED to Board : _______ Board President's Signature: _________ _ Required to be presented to the Director of the Department of Education for written approval: DYES ~O Written Adopted Resolution Attached: DYES ONO Required Additional Documentation: ________________________ _ Date Certified to ADE: Date Director's Written Approval received by district: Effective Date: ____________ _ l\u0026lt;e\"'- ::J\n,,-,v,..e ~ Please return by certified mail to: Mr. Raymond Simon, Director Arkansas Dept. of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 304A Little Rock, AR 72201 2 ,, DATE: February 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 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: _.,,t..:..-Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Gwen Caraway, Fixed Asset Property Manager ~ \u0026gt; ~ a C: ~ 31 IT z DONATIONS School/Department Item Donor Bale Elementary $100.00 cash Calvin Brown School for Kathleen Shute's kindergarten class Bale Elementary $9,020.00 cash Children International School to be distributed as through Children follows: school lnternational-UALR uniforms $625.00\nwinter coats, hats \u0026amp; gloves $450.00\nhealth room equipment, supplies and materials $550.00\nmaterials to build outside classroom $5,100.00\nAR Rice Depot for Backpack Program $7 45.00\nt-shirts for Hip Hop Health and registration fee for students participating in the LR Marathon $1,550.00 Central High School $3,000.00 cash to Winthrop \u0026amp; Lisenne the special education Rockefeller department Central High School Microwave oven, Paula Aultz, Kevin valued at $48.00, and Cathy Crass to the basketball concession stand Cloverdale Magnet Gift cards, valued at Bank of America Middle School $220.00, trophies valued at $95.00, and 25 subject dividers valued at $25.00 to be used for student spelling bee awards and teacher incentives Rightsell Academy $700.00 cash for 100 Black Men school uniforms and teacher/student incentives School/De12artment Item Donor Rightsell Academy $400.00 cash for LR Black Police ~ school uniforms and Officers' Association \u0026gt; C \u0026lt;- teacher/student 0 C:\n,o incentives z :,I,:. ~ Rightsell Academy $300.00 cash for Dr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Cortez McFarland staff t-shirts for the \"Race for the Cure Walk\" Rightsell Academy $100.00 cash for Mr. Andre Pendleton materials and food supplies for the Rightsell Spaghetti Dinner/Talent Show Rightsell Academy $250.00 cash for Rightsell PT A school uniforms Rightsell Academy $50.00 cash for food The family of Charlie supplies/materials for Carrington the Rightsell Spaghetti Dinner/Talent Show Rightsell Academy Washer/dryer, valued Jimmerson Family at $250.00, to assist Health Care In providing clean school uniforms for students Little Rock School $1,000.00 cash to The Wal-Mart Foundation District \"Smoke Free purchase incentives Homes\" Campaign to be distributed to the elementary and middle school classes with the highest number of \"Smoke Free Homes\" pledges Little Rock School $102.93 cash to be Grace Presbyterian District Homeless used to provide Church Education Program emergency services for homeless families Little Rock School $75.00 cash for LRSD Association of District Homeless Christmas Holiday Educational Office Education Program assistance for Professionals homeless students BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DATE: 1/18/05 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: ~ . /1,,___/  1 rl Barbara Anderson, Principal_\"~ \"l U('- (,1 , SUBJECT: Donation Calvin Brown of 11 Lakeside Drive, Little Rock, AR 72204, contributed $100.00 to Kathleen Shute, kindergarten teacher for classroom use. It is my recommendation that this be accepted in accordance with the donation policies of the Little Rock School District. ...--.-- :,_--. .... ._ __ __ ! '\n' I  Little Rock ArKansas 72 04 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL January 31, 2005 To: r Darrel Paradis, Director of Procurement From: if Barbara Anderson, Principal Subject: Donation Children International made a special donation to Bale Elementary through Children Intemational-UALR in the amount of $9,020.00. The following list shows the breakdown of how the money will be spent. $625.00- School uniforms $450.00 - Winter coats, hats and gloves $550.00- For the health room - school clinic equipment, supplies and materials $5100.00 - Materials to build an outside classroom (picnic tables/pavilion) $745.00- Donated to AR Rice Depot for Backpack Program $ 1,550.00 T-shirts for Hip Hop Health (Kid's Club) and registration fee for students participating in LR Marathon It is recommended that this donation be accepted in accordance with the polices and procedures of the Little Rock School District. l Little Rock Central High School 1500 South Park Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-447-1400 Fax 501-447-1401 DATE: JANUARY 10, 2005 - ,:\nTO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL tf'f_ttl2Jt(ln ... ./ SUBJECT: DONATION Winthrop \u0026amp; Lisenne Rockefeller of P. 0. Box 3157, Little Rock, AR 72203, very generously donated $3,000 to our special education department. It is my recommendation that this be accepted in accordance with the donation policies of the Little Rock School District. II Little Rock Central High School 1500 South Park Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-44 7-1400 Fax 501-44 7-1401 DATE: 1/11/2005 TO: FROM: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL \"-fl(flilklla,lu SUBJECT: DONATION Paula Aultz of 36 St. Andrews Drive, Little Rock, AR, 72212, and Kevin \u0026amp; Cathy Crass of 4521 Country Club Blvd., Little Rock, AR 72207, donated a microwave valued at $48.00 to the basketball concession stand. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the donation policies of the Little Rock School District. ? ., J ~ )\u0026gt; C l: C ~ 3r1r :z I CLOVERDALE MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL January 18, 2005 To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: An~Munns, Principal RE: Donations Please accept the following donations that were given to Cloverdale Magnet Middle School. The trophies will be awarded to sixth grade students who participate in a \"spelling bee\". The subject dividers will be given to students to organize their portfolios. The gift cards will be given as incentives to teachers who earn perfect attendance. Bank of America Ms. Carol Murray, Vice President Gift Cards Trophies 25 subject dividers Total Value of Donations Total Value $220.00 $95.00 $25.00 $340.00 RIGHTSELL ACADEMY \"Great Expectations: Believe! Achieve! Succeed!\" TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: '1 Eunice M. Thrasher, Principal t.- Rightsell Academy DATE: January 31, 2005 RE: Donation The donor listed below has generously donated $700.00 for school uniforms and teachers/students incentives: 100 Black Men c/o J.C. Babbs 12804 St. Charles Blvd Little Rock, AR 72211 It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Thank you. /lh , r, I: 7- _, I RIGHTSELL ACADEMY \"Great Expectations: Believe! Achieve! Succeed!\" TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: DATE: RE: Eunice M. Thrasher, Principal Rightsell Academy January 31, 2005 Donation The donor listed below has generously donated $400.00 for school uniforms and teachers/students incentives: LR Black Police Officers Association 700 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Thank you. 1/h RIGHTSELL ACADEMY \"Great Expectations: Believe! Achieve! Succeed!\" TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Eunice M. Thrasher, Principal tj. Rightsell Academy January 31, 2005 Donation The donor listed below has generously donated $300.00 for stafft-shirts for the \"Race for the Cure Walk\": Dr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Cortez McFarland 1 St. Vincent Circle Little Rock, AR 72205 It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Thank you. /lh RIGHTSELL ACADEMY \"Great Expectations: Believe! Achieve! Succeed! \" TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Eunice M. Thrasher, Principal f) Rightsell Academy January 31, 2005 Donation The donor listed below has generously donated $100.00 for materials and food supplies for the Rightsell Spaghetti Dinner/Talent Show: Mr. Andre Pendleton 108 S. Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 72205 It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Thank you. 11.h C: . - RIGHTSELL ACADEMY \"Great Expectations: Believe! Achieve! Succeed!\" TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement I t~ Eunice M. Thrasher, Principal u,---, Rightsell Academy January 31, 2005 Donation The donor listed below has generously donated $250.00 for school uniforms: Rightsell PTA 911 W. 1 \u0026lt;Jh Street Little Rock, AR 72206 It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Thank you. /lh I ' RIGHTSELL ACADEMY \"Great Expectations: Believe! Achieve! Succeed!\" TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: DATE: RE: Eunice M. Thrasher, Principal Rightsell Academy January 31, 2005 Donation 8 The donor listed below has generously donated $50.00 for food supplies/materials for the Rightsell Spaghetti Dinner/Talent Show: To The Family of Charlie Carrington 819 W. 33rd Street Little Rock, AR 72206 It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Thank you. 1/.h RIGHTSELL ACADEMY \"Great Expectations: Believe! Achieve! Succeed!\" TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Eunice M Thrasher, Principal ~ Rightsell Academy DATE: January 31, 2005 RE: Donation The donor listed below has generously donated a washer/dryer valued at $250. 00 to assist in providing clean school uniforms for the students: Jimmerson Family Health Care c/o Dr. Robert Jimmerson 6917 Geyer Springs Road Little Rock, AR 72209 It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Thank you. 1/h - ,. ~ :,, ~ C: i IT z TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District Pupil Services Department January 21, 2005 Darral Paradis, Director - Procurement Department Jo Evelyn Els~irector - Pupil Services Department Donation The Wal-Mart Foundation donated $1,000 to the Little Rock School District Smoke Free Homes Campaign. These funds will be used to purchase incentives which will be distributed to the class at the elementary and middle school levels with the highest number of Smoke Free Homes pledges signed by parents and returned during the campaign (January 18- February 4, 2005). It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with governing polices of the Little Rock School District. Your consideration is appreciated. 1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District Pupil Services Department January 21, 2005 Darral Paradis, Director - Procurement Department Jo Evelyn Elst~\nector - Pupil Services Department Donation The following organizations wish to make a donation to the Little Rock School District Homeless Education Program in the amount shown below: Grace Presbyterian Church LRSD Association of Educational Office Professionals $102.93 $75.00 The Grace Presbyterian Church donation will be used to provide emergency services for homeless families. The donation from the Little Rock School District Association of Educational Office Professionals will be used for Christmas Holiday assistance for homeless students. It is recommended that these donations be approved in accordance with governing policies of the Little Rock School District. Your consideration is appreciated. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: February 24, 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: January 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 January 2005 financial reports as submitted. PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen, Manager Financial Services LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2004 AND 2005 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2003/04 01/31/04 COLLECTED 2004/05 01/31/05 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 57,547,800 55,681,497 96.76% 61,436,691 61,324,530 99.82% DELINQUENT TAXES 10,100,000 9,516,878 94.23% 12,135,000 6,480,684 53.40% 40% PULLBACK 29,600,000 31,250,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 210,000 205,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 180,000 155,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 150,000 206,062 137.37% 185,000 203,569 110.04% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 380,000 231 ,195 60.84% 485,000 113,002 23.30% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 200,000 77,339 38.67% 245,000 199,653 81.49% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 240,000 166,872 69.53% 215,000 174,899 81.35% TOTAL 98,607,800 65,879,843 66.81% 106,311,691 68,496,337 64.43% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 21 ,000 11 ,594 55.21% 22,000 16,103 73.20% TOTAL 21,000 11,594 55.21% 22,000 16,103 7320% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 53,226,139 29,447,876 55.33% 65,082,694 37,508,038 57.63% ALTERNATIVE LEARNING 1,927,250 963,624 50.00% ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 193,739 NATL SCHL LUNCH STUDENT FUNDING 6,498,240 3,544,494 54.55% PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1,141,165 1,141,165 100.00% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 8,300,000 3,373,820 40.65% 8,275,000 4,162,579 50.30% VOCATIONAL 1,400,000 621 ,053 44.36% 1,350,000 731 ,911 54.22% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,675,000 271 ,285 16.20% 2,100,000 470,225 22.39% EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 202,301 74.01% 5,542,510 2,593,434 46.79% TRANSPORTATION 3,875,562 1,243,841 32.09% 4,125,000 1,330,714 32.26% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,900,000 1,473,688 37.79% 4,575,000 2,048,076 44.77% ADULT EDUCATION 920,337 368,337 40.02% 934,380 344,768 36.90% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 560,545 267,486 47.72% TAP PROGRAM 285,245 142,623 50.00% 382,903 162,312 42.39% AT RISK FUNDING 360,000 193,739 53.82% 395,000 9,400 2.38% TOTAL 74,776,187 37,606,049 50.29% 102,522,882 55,010,739 53.66% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 770,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,350,000 141,308 10.47% 1,295,000 8,155 0.63% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,632,430 544,143 33.33% 1,849,008 616,336 33.33% TOTAL 3,752,430 685,451 18.27% 3,914,008 624,491 15.96% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 177,157,418 104,182,938 58.81% 212,770,581 124,147,670 58.35% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 24,075,790 10,010,008 41.58% 21 ,531,929 11 ,631,207 54 .02% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 4,000,000 2,398,316 59.96% 4,500,000 2,465,282 54 .78% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,689,351 9,322,338 27,964,934 10,526,834 37 .64% TOTAL 52,765,141 21,730,662 41 .18% 53,996,863 24,623,323 45.60% TOT AL REVENUE 229,922,559 125,913,600 54.76% 266,767,444 148,770,993 55.77% a LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2004 AND 2005 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2003/04 01/31/04 EXPENDED 2004/05 01/31/05 EXPENSES SALARIES 100,684,982 46,716,574 46.40% 117,324,912 54,777,459 BENEFITS 26,483,772 12,288,907 46.40% 36,185,811 15,514,121 PURCHASED SERVICES 19,719,297 9,320,130 47.26% 20,959,918 9,892,052 MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,185,459 5,169,777 63.16% 8,725,914 4,931,068 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,575,580 630,412 40.01% 2,760,600 932,979 OTHER OBJECTS 8,384,567 2,968,136 35.40% 10,770,418 3,623,285 DEBT SERVICE 12,098,342 12,1 91,763 100.77% 12,474,809 4,590,834 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 177,131,999 89,285,698 50.41% 209,202,382 94,261,798 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,056,193 8,419,292 32.31% 23,853,134 9,481,805 DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 4,000,000 2,306,955 57.67% 5,007,809 2,303,856 MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,689,351 10,577,444 42.84% 27,964,934 11,967,752 TOTAL 54,745,544 21,303,691 38.91% 56,825,877 23,753,413 TOTAL EXPENSES 231,877,543 110,589,388 47.69% 266,028,259 118,015,211 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (1 ,954,984) 15,324,211 739,184 30,755,781 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M \u0026amp; 0 3,558,580 3,558,580 4,005,957 4,005,957 OPERATING 9,026,855 9,026,855 6,531,706 6,531,706 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M \u0026amp; 0 1,578,177 3,985,551 1,176,943 4,875,867 OPERATING 9,052,274 23,924,095 10,099,905 36,417,578 TOTAL 10,630,451 27,909,647 11,276,848 41,293,445 % EXPENDED 46.69% 42.87% 47.20% 56.51% 33.80% 33.64% 36.80% 45.06% 39.75% 46.01% 42.80% 41.80% 44.36% ' ~ \u0026gt; 0 \u0026lt;- 0 c:: ~ 3C m ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2005 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-04 2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 01-31-05 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 17,956.90 2,900.00 15,056.90 MCCLELLAN 77,519.02 77,519.02 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE 396.12 396.12 CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 95,872.04 0.00 0.00 2,900.00 0.00 92,972.04 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 11 ,586.46 80,000.00 53,155.88 8,936.88 29,493.70 NEW WORK PROJECTS 6,090,835.40 2,964,708.39 885,702.75 2,240,424.26 SECURITY PROJECTS 14,541.25 14,541 .25 LIGHTING PROJECTS 0.00 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 7,569,593.08 799,765.94 114,071.78 6,655,755.36 RENOVATION PROJECTS 12,752,856.34 5,822,014.90 1,034,233.51 5,896,607.93 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 1,569,424.27 1,143,377.19 350,633.20 439,999.88 1,922,168.38 SUBTOTAL 28,008,836.80 1,143,377.19 80,000.00 9,990,278.31 2,482,944.80 16,758,990.88 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 445,618.31 231 ,104.00 676,722.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 14,773,544.18 (80,000.00) 14,693,544.18 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 5,037,437.95 504,492.74 5,541,930.69 SUBTOTAL 21 ,555,688.12 735,596.74 (80,000.00) 0.00 0.00 22,211,284.86 GRAND TOTAL !ll li!ill ~llli llli 1 uza l!Z~ ll~ l2.WI. ll lll!J lZU Jl ~!~ ll~Ull ~ll llli~.~!Z za LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2005 I I PROJECT I I ENDING ALLOCATIONS EXPENSE I EXPENSE I EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE ENCUMBERED ALLOCATION PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 01-31-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 THRU 01-31-05 THRU 01-31-05 SUBTOTAL 01-31-05 I I ADMINISTRATION 760,526.80 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 149,597.63 114,896.16 53,155.88 8,936.88 731,033.10 29,493.70 NEW WORK PROJECTS 38,788,412.86 443,467.00 I 4,589,606.29 I 11,671.442.11 15,993,062.06 2,964,708.39 885,702.75 36,547,988.60 2,240,424.26 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 113,930.47 I 109,609.73 27,732.73 0.00 0.00 251,272.93 14,541.25 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,862,548.33 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 I 379,661 .38 9,012.76 0.00 0.00 4,862,548.33 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 18,922,387.50 I 791,385.63 1 4,218,294.40 1 3,455,350.67 2,887,763.72 799,765.94 114,071 .78 12,266,632.14 6,655,755.36 RENOVATION PROJECTS 51,027,748.84 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 18,091,992.05 5,822,014.90 1,034,233.51 45,131,140.91 5,896,607.93 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 12,878,988.97 I 575,016.53 4,325,201 .40 4,500,374.61 765,594.97 350,633.20 439,999.88 10,956,820.59 1,922,168.38 UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 15,987,365.15 I 15,987,365.15 TOTAL 143,493,792.62 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 37,890,054.45 9,990,278.31 2,482,944.80 110,747,436.60 32,746,356.03 - -  t I i I I I I I  -- I - - - - I 1N3WNHnorov 11x LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2005 j   Fund Purchase Maturity Institution Interest Rate Type Principal Date Date r Operating 01-28-05 TFN Bank of America 2.190% Repo 8,075,000.00 Operating 01-28-05 02-01-05 Bank of America 2.220% Treasury Bills 7,448,162.33 Operating 12-10-04 03-15-05 Twin City Bank 2.410% CD 4,668,206.83 Operating 12-16-04 02-01-05 Twin City Bank 2.630% CD 11,000,000.00 Operating 12-16-04 02-15-05 Twin City Bank 2.670% CD 9,200,000.00 Operating 12-16-04 03-01-05 Twin City Bank 2.710% CD 3,500,000.00 Operating 12-16-04 03-\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_1167","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2005-01-11/2005-11-15"],"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","Educational planning","School board members","School boards","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence"],"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/1167"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT January 11 , 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear ODM Staff: I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on August 26, September 23, October 14, October 28, and November 11, and November 16, 2004. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Enclosures Sincerely, Beverly J. Griffin Executive Assistant to the Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 13, 2005 nl u FEB 10 l:os OFFICE l)f DESEGREGATIO 1 , .. N\\TORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting in conjunction with the regularly scheduled agenda meeting on Thursday, January 13, 2005, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Katherine Mitchell Bryan Day Tony Rose MEMBERS ABSENT: Baker Kurrus Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Mr. Berkley called the meeting to order at 5:18 p.m. Five members of the Board were present at roll call. Mr. Kurrus and Ms. Strickland were absent. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting listed two items for the Board's review and consideration. A. Resolution in Support of Lease Purchase Agreement for School Buses B. Review of Regulations GBK - Grievances/Concerns/Complaints C. Mitchell Community - Request for Special Meeting REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 13, 2005 Page 2 Ill. ACTION AGENDA A. Resolution: Mark Milhollen presented a resolution in support of a lease purchase agreement for six school buses. This purchase had been included in previous budget actions, but a Board resolution was required in order to finalize the purchase. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the resolution\nMr. Day seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. Mr. Rose and Mr. Day requested that the administration continue to monitor and evaluate the availability of hybrid vehicles for District use. Mr. Rose stated that he would begin to draft a policy that would preclude us from purchasing vehicles that are not fuel efficient, and that we begin to replace cars, trucks and other vehicles with hybrids. B. Regulation GBK: Grievances / Concerns I Complaints Beverly Williams presented a regulation to support Board policy GBK, Grievances/Concerns/Complaints. Arkansas law, Act 1357 requires that the Board of Education include a policy and regulation regarding grievance procedures for all employees who are not covered by a professional negotiations agreement. The Board received the revised regulation for review and comment. No formal Board action was required. The regulations will become a part of the District's policy manual and employee handbook. C. Mitchell Community - Request for Special Meeting The Board received a petition from citizens in the Mitchell School Community on December 13, 2004, requesting a special meeting of the Board. A certified letter was mailed in response, offering the date of January 13 for the meeting. The Board was prepared to conduct the special meeting to hear from this group, but there was no response and none of the petitioners were pre~ent at the time of the meeting. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 13, 2005 Page3 IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Rose, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. APPROVED: / -J, '2 OS Larry Berkley, Pf sident U:41~ Katherine P. Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 27, 2005, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Bryan Day Baker Kurrus Tony Rose Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Mr. Berkley called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Six members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Daugherty arrived at 5:40 p.m. In addition, ex officio representatives for the month of January were also present: Nona Whittaker, teacher at Cloverdale Magnet Middle School, and Kristian Henderson, Central High School student. II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOMING COMMENTS Mr. Berkley welcomed the audience and introduced Danny Fletcher, Director of Fine Arts, who presented the M. L. King Elementary School string choir. The choir is directed by Mary Zies. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page2 Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Superintendent's Citations Prior to the presentation of Superintendent's Citations, Dr. Brooks introduced his fiance, Brenda Whitmore. The first recognition was given to Mr. Frank Barofsky and Friends of Donnie Dietz. This group of gentlemen donated funds to install the Dietz Physical Development Center at Hall High School. The dedication ceremony was held on January 11, and Dr. Brooks asked the audience to join him in expressing appreciation for this generous donation. Nancy Rousseau assisted in the presentation of citations to Central High School math teacher, Lenora Murray. Ms. Murray's students received state recognition in the American Math Competitions. Students who were present included: Ann Ye, Don Ding, Lawrence Watts, and Cherry Fu. Kristian Henderson, this month's student ex officio representative to the Board, was recognized for receiving a $20,000 scholarship as one of the Urban America's Best and Brightest Students. Dell, Inc. and College Broadband, Inc sponsor this competition, which will provide $5,000 per year for four years. Kristian and Nona Whittaker, teacher ex officio representative, received certificates of appreciation from the Board and Superintendent for participating in the January board meetings. B. Remarks from Citizens None. C. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Mr. Ledbetter was present, but had no remarks or reports. D. Public Education Foundation Presentation on Project SOAR Dr. Linda Remele from the Public Education Foundation provided a brief overview of the on-line assessment tool, Project SOAR, which is being installed and implemented at several LRSD middle schools. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page 3 SOAR will allow teachers to monitor student progress in order to tailor individualized instructional plans and provide appropriate remediation. The tool is being piloted at Dunbar, Mabelvale, Southwest and Pulaski Heights Middle Schools. IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Remarks from Board Members Katherine Mitchell reported that she had attended the Stamp-Out Smoking rally at McClellan. She also invited audience members to attend a Reader \u0026amp; Writer Series on Saturday, January 29 at Philander Smith College. These workshops will promote literature by African American authors\nmiddle and high school students are encouraged to attend. Baker Kurrus attended the Dietz Awards ceremony at Hall High School. He thanked the donors for making this contribution in memory of their friend, Donnie Dietz. The gentlemen who made this contribution had never been to Little Rock before, and chose to honor the memory of their friend by making a contribution to his high school alma mater. Mr. Kurrus also reminded the audience that open enrollment for students new to the district was taking place this week and next. He encouraged the audience to visit our schools and experience excellence in education first hand. Tony Rose remarked that our students were achieving well and that the LRSD was doing a very good job at providing a quality education. He thanked the Public Education Foundation and the donors who made the contributions that allowed implementation of Project SOAR. Sue Strickland also expressed appreciation to the Public Education Foundation. She congratulated Dr. Brooks on his engagement, and extended a welcome to Ms. Whitmore. Mr. Berkley closed the remarks section by extending appreciation to Dr. Remele and Lisa Black for attending the meeting and for providing the information on Project SOAR. B. Entry Plan Executive Summary Report to the Board Dr. Brooks provided a written summary report on the Entry Plan. There were no questions or comments from the Board. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page4 C. Report on Superintendent's Aspiring Principals Institute Dr. Sadie Mitchell presented a brief overview of the process used to select members of the first Superintendent's Aspiring Principals Institute. This yearlong process will prepare the participants to become effective building principals. A detailed report was printed as part of the Board's agenda. The applicants were introduced to the Board, and M' Shay Callicott, the group's spokesperson, thanked Dr. Brooks and the Board for giving them an opportunity to receive professional development and career enhancement. Dr. Daugherty encouraged those who applied but were not selected to try again next year. D. Student Assignment Report Mr. Babbs reminded the audience that open enrollment for the 2005-06 school year was underway through February 4. Access to registration and enrollment information is now available on the LRSD website. He reported that approximately 600 applications had been processed on the first day of enrollment. E. Budget Update Mr. Milhollen took this opportunity to provide a brief overview of the statewide facilities assessment that had been widely reported in the news over the past week. He admitted that the report had generated negative comments and publicity. The findings were somewhat controversial, however, each district had been asked to review their data reports, make comments or corrections and then meet with the Arkansas Facilities Commission. These meetings are intended to facilitate corrections with the expected result being an accurate final version of the report to be submitted to the State legislature. Mr. Milhollen reported that he would provide additional information as the legislative sessions continue and as more information becomes available. Additional funding for facilities should be expected, but the amount cannot be predicted. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page 5 F. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects Mr. Goodman was present, and the monthly report was printed in the agenda. Dr. Mitchell requested an update on planning for the Rightsell project. Mr. Goodman reported that final reviews and planning were in process and that it would be late March or early April before the final estimates were completed. Estimated time for completion of the work is one year. G. Internal Auditors Report Mr. Becker was present. His printed report was provided as part of the Board's agenda. He reported that he had met with Dr. Mitchell to review goals and to set priorities as directed by the Board. H. Technology Update John Ruffins presented a review of the technology report printed in the Board's agenda. In addition, he reported that computer replacements were taking place in fourteen schools. Mr. Berkley requested on-going updates on installation of the Edline system at Parkview. He asked Mr. Ruffins to provide an estimate for expansion to other schools once the Parkview system was operational. Mr. Berkley stressed the importance of parents having on-line access to their children's grades and attendance information. V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS A. Minutes Minutes from the regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on December 16, 2004, and from special meetings held on December 8, 2004, and January 13, 2005, were presented for review and approval. Mr. Rose moved to approve the minutes as submitted\nDr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page 6 VI. HUMAN RESOURCES VII. A. Personnel Changes Routine personnel changes were printed in the Board's agenda. Ms. Strickland moved to approve the report as presented. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. BUSINESS SERVICES A. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve the acceptance of recent donations to schools and departments within the District. The donations are listed in the following chart. Kristian Henderson, student ex officio, read the items listed in the Board's agenda. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to accept the donated items\nDr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Central High School Office furniture, valued at approximately Gary Stephenson / State Farm $8,322. Insurance Company $2,000 cash to the baseball team Walter C. Coleman Cloverdale Middle School Gift cards, valued at 2=$125 and Bank of America trophies valued at $95 to be used for student rewards and teacher incentives Terry Elementary School Piano valued at $1,500. Karen Stein, Music Specialist at Terry $958 cash to purchase a video camera Robert Jones, Optimist Club of Greater for the media center Little Rock Western Hills Side-by-side refrigerator, valued at $200 Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Richard Blain B. Financial Report The monthly financial summary reports were provided to the Board as part of the printed agenda. Mr. Milhollen was present to review the reports and respond to questions. The reports were accepted by consensus. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page 7 VIII. CLOSING REMARKS Dr. Brooks announced intersession dates for students who attend the extended year schools\nthose students will be out from January 31 - February 11. Dr. Mitchell requested copies of the results of customer service surveys completed by principals for the Facilities Services and Human Resources Department. Ms. Whittaker expressed her appreciation to the Board for providing her an opportunity to serve as representative for Cloverdale Magnet Middle School. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. on a motion by Dr. Daugherty, seconded by Ms. Strickland. APPROVED: __ _ Katherine P. Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT February 9, 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear ODM Staff: FEB 1 2005 I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on December 8 and December 16, 2004 and January 13, 2005. In addition, we are providing an addendum to the minutes from the meeting held on November 11, 2004. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Sincerely, ~ Beverly J. Griffin Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Enclosures Keep or Toss O ( Posl-11\" 7668 C3M 1993 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 J r LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 10, 2005 M r The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting in conjunction with the regularly scheduled agenda meeting on Thursday, February 10, 2005, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Vice-president Mike Daugherty presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Micheal Daugherty Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Berkley Bryan Day ALSO PRESENT: I. Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Dr. Daugherty called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Five members of the board were present at roll call. Mr. Berkley and Mr. Day were absent. 11. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting listed two items for the Board's review and consideration. A. Appointment of Principal - Forest Heights Middle School B. Student Petition for Reinstatement 05 REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 10, 2005 Page2 Ill. ACTION AGENDA A. Appointment of Principal - Forest Heights Middle School The superintendent presented a recommendation to appoint Dr. Deborah Price as the principal at Forest Heights Middle School. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to approve the recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. B. Student Petition for Reinstatement Dr. Watson presented a recommendation to reinstate Antonio Embry to the LRSD. Antonio was expelled on January 15, 2004 from Dunbar Magnet Middle School. He was found in possession of a loaded handgun, which was found in his backpack. He stated that he and a friend had found the gun on the way to school, and the friend was to have hidden the gun in an empty locker at school. Instead, the friend placed the gun in his backpack without his knowledge. Antonio served one year in the Step One Program of the Juvenile Justice Center. He completed the program with a 3.25 grade point average\ngood behavior and good attendance were noted in his records. In addition, he attended Rivendale Day Treatment and Bridgeway Hospital Residential Treatment Programs. His counselors have recommended placement in a regular school setting as the best educational option for Antonio. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the recommendation for reinstatement. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Rose, seconded by Mr. Kurrus. APPROVED: ___ _ -~ Katherine P. Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 24, 2005 05 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 24, 2005, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Bryan Day Baker Kurrus Tony Rose Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL Mr. Berkley called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Six members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Daugherty arrived at 5:40 p.m. In addition, ex officio representatives for the month of February were also present: Shirley Harper, teacher at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, and Vantina Hampton, J. A. Fair High School student. II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/WELCOMING COMMENTS Mr. Berkley welcomed the audience and introduced Danny Fletcher, Director of Fine Arts, who presented students from Mitchell Elementary School. Their teacher, Kelly Keck, provided a brief description of the grant received by the LRSD to provide music training for elementary school teachers and the benefits of this grant for our students. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page2 Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Superintendent's Citations Dr. Brooks recognized the Central High School Tiger football team, the Arkansas 5-A champions for the second year in a row. Coach Bernie Cox and members of the team were present, as well as Nancy Rousseau, Central's principal. In addition to the team's recognition, Coach Cox was honored for his selection as the High School Coach of the Year. This honor was given to Coach Cox by the Little Rock Touchdown Club and the National Federation of State High School Coaches Association. The Board suspended the rules at this point in the agenda to honor Coach Cox by naming the football field at Quigley Stadium in his honor. That action will be reported later in these minutes. Chloe Smith, student at Mann Magnet Middle School was recognized for her selection as one of two Arkansas winners in the national Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program. Chloe works as a volunteer in an after school and summer camp sponsored by Easter Seals of Arkansas. She will receive a $1,000 prize, an engraved medallion and a trip to Washington D.C. in May. Dr. Brooks presented a citation to Mrs. Carolyn Foreman, director of the Parkview Magnet High School Choir. Mrs. Foreman was named 2004 Central Region High School Choir Director of the Year by the Arkansas Choral Directors Association. The superintendent presented a citation to Nancy Rousseau in recognition of Central High School's selection as one of twelve high schools in the nation to be recognized by the Siemens Corporation and The College Board. The Siemens Award is given in recognition of exceptional Advanced Placement math and science programs. Brenda Futrell, Central High School teacher, was honored for her selection as the 2004-05 Arkansas Marketing Teacher of the Year. Ms. Futrell sponsors the Central High School chapter of the Distributive Education Clubs of America. Two of her students won medals at the state level competitions this year, Patrick Beavers for Food Marketing, Associate Level, and Leslie Rogers, Full Service Restaurant Management. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page3 Dr. Brooks presented a citation to Eliza Borne, editor of the Central High Tiger newspaper. Eliza has been selected to receive two scholarships: the Al Neuharth Free Spirit Scholarship, in the amount of $1,000, and the Guideposts Young Writers Scholarship in the amount of $4,000. In addition to the cash awards, Eliza will travel to Washington, DC where she will meet with other top journalism students from across the country. The final citations were presented to the ex officio board representatives, Shirley Harper, teacher from Dunbar Magnet Middle School, and Vantina Hampton, student from J. A. Fair Magnet High School. Dr. Brooks introduced Deborah Price, who was recently assigned as principal of Forest Heights Middle School, and Becky Ramsey, who was appointed as the principal of Terry Elementary School. B. Partners in Education: New Partnerships Debbie Milam addressed the Board, reminding the audience that the annual Evening for the Stars would be held on April 26, 2005. The Board was asked to approve recent partnerships between schools and businesses: Alternative and Accelerated Learning Centers, represented by Jodie Carter and Carol Green with Little Rock Job Corp, represented by Willie Brown, Willie Jones and Mary Ellen Cody Chicot Elementary School, represented by De/win Smith with Popeye's Chicken and Biscuits, represented by Mr. Berry Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School, represented by Tyrone Harris with Cozymel's, represented by Linda Fletcher and Tiffany Jones Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the partnerships, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. Remarks from Citizens Gwen Marshall introduced herself as a teacher at Mitchell Elementary School. She reported having continuing health problems which she contributed to working in the old Mitchell building. She asked the Board to consider the health issues that remain among teachers and students who were exposed to the unhealthy air quality and environment of Mitchell. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page4 Rebecca Campbell stated that she was a parent of two students at Central High School. She asked for the Board to grant an exception to the policy that prevents employees from doing business with the District. There was an action item on the agenda for the Board's consideration which would allow a District employee to sell soccer equipment to the school teams. David Duke, volunteer soccer coach at Central High School, asked for the Board's consideration of the request for Jennie Cooper to be allowed to do business with the District. He stated that he was forced to purchase $4,500 worth of soccer uniforms and equipment from an out-of-state, on-line vendor because of the restrictions imposed by the District's policy. Jennie Cooper asked for the Board to consider her request to be allowed to sell soccer equipment to the District. She asked the Board to consider the fact that most of the money spent on soccer uniforms and equipment was contributed by parents, and that only $600 per year was allocated per team from the District's budget. Pastor Clarence Thornton, minister from Macedonia Baptist Church, commented on racial issues within the LRSD. He spoke of concerns that the LRSD is not adequately educating African American students to be successful, and that the administrative and teaching staff of the District was not reflective of the 70% minority student enrollment. He asked the Board to develop a plan to ensure that we have a school district that is reflective of the make up of the community. D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Katherine Knight congratulated all of the students and employees who were recognized by Superintendent Brooks earlier in the agenda. She reminded the Board that contract negotiations were scheduled to begin within a few weeks. She was anticipating a quick bargaining session with few issues for negotiation. Ms. Knight provided a brief review of the National Board Certification process, noting that portfolios were scheduied for submission by the end of March. She thanked Dr. Brooks and the Board for providing the stipends that allowed more of our teachers to participate in this process. The perfect attendance incentives were paid out on the Friday prior to the Board meeting. This negotiated benefit allowed a reduction in the need for substitutes and gave the teachers a financial reward for coming to work regularly. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page 5 Ms. Knight thanked Olivine Roberts for working with the CTA and District special education administrators and teachers to resolve some serious concerns and issues. She reminded the Board that Benchmark tests were scheduled within a few weeks and she extended best wishes to students and teachers who had been working hard to make sure that students succeed on these assessments. IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Remarks from Board Members Ms. Strickland stated that she was excited about the future of the LRSD, and thanked Dr. Brooks for his leadership. She stated that she was anticipating nothing but good results from his efforts to lead the District to success. Dr. Daugherty reported that the first official meeting of the committee to find an alternate use for the Mitchell School building had been held immediately prior to this board meeting. He noted that many ideas had been generated by the committee members and stated that they would schedule additional meetings to assess the needs of the community. Their comments and suggestions will be included in a recommendation for the Board's consideration. Mr. Berkley reported that he had substituted at McClellan High School and stated that he had a new appreciation for what our teachers are facing each day in the classroom. He encouraged others to get into the schools to see firsthand what it is like to be a teacher in the LRSD. Mr. Rose stated that he had attended a mathematics leadership workshop sponsored by UALR. He reported that sometimes the responsibility for education is removed from the student. He suggested that the students must be held accountable for their own educational success. Mr. Kurrus reported that he had been attending soccer games and that he was pleased with the good sportsman exhibited by our students. He said that they compete hard and fair and win gracefully. He stated that he had been invited to speak at the state PTA legislative conference. State legislators are showing a lot of courage in making the decisions that should be made for our kids. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page6 In closing, Mr. Kurrus discussed the rapid changes that would be taking place in the LRSD over the next few weeks and months. He noted that we would become much leaner and that we must change the way we deliver education to the children. Dr. Mitchell thanked everyone for expressions of support and sympathy in the recent loss of her mother. She reported that she had attended the open house at Metropolitan and congratulated the individuals who work in that program, preparing our students to enter the workforce. She also commended Sandy Becker on his selection to receive a service award from the Arkansas Association of Certified Public Accountants. Dr. Mitchell expressed concern about the reorganization of the District, stating that there were too many uncertainties involved and too many people who had not been informed about how they would be affected by the changes. She felt that employees who had the most to lose were those who had not been informed about the impact of the changes. She questioned the reasoning behind paying consultants to tell us how to reorganize. B. Student Assignment Report Mr. Babbs reported that assignment letters for the 2005-06 school year would be mailed out on March 4, 2005. Letters for Pre-Kindergarten students would follow on April 8. C. Budget Update Mr. Milhollen reported that the first installment of the attendance incentive payments had been mailed to teachers. These payments were a part of the contract negotiations for the 2004-05 school year and that teachers who were eligible would receive as much as $1,300 per year as an incentive bonus for not missing any days from school. Other employee groups were scheduled to receive payments, but not in the same amount. 873 teachers had received the stipend, for a total payout for the District of $318,601. It is hoped that this incentive will reflect in better student achievement by having the teacher in the classroom every day. Mr. Milhollen also reported on monitoring of the legislative facilities review. Four bills had been drafted that would impact the facilities needs across the state. He promised to continue to monitor the legislative actions and report to the Board as more is known. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page 7 D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects Mr. Goodman reported that the drawings for the Rightsell renovations were expected by the end of the month. Once those are reviewed , the District would enter into the bidding process for completing the recommended work. The complete bond project report was printed in the Board's agenda. E. Internal Auditors Report Mr. Becker was present. His printed report was provided as part of the Board's agenda. F. Technology Update Ms. Neal reported that installation of Edline at Parkview was complete. Staff training was complete, and training for parents was continuing. Edline will be installed at the other four high schools after spring break. A written report was provided as a part of the Board's agenda. - The Board took a brief recess and returned at 7:15 p.m. Dr. Daugherty did not return. V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS A. Minutes Minutes from the regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on January 27, and from a special meeting held on February 10, 2005, were presented for review and approval. Ms. Strickland moved to approve the minutes as submitted\nMr. Day seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VI. SCHOOL SERVICES A. Naming of Facilities: Proposal to Name Football Field at Quigley Stadium The Board suspended the rules during the Superintendent's Citations section of the agenda to allow action on this item. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to suspend the rules, seconded by Mr. Rose, and unanimously approved. In accordance with Board Policy FF: Naming of Facilities, parents, students and supporters of the Central High School football program submitted a request to rename the athletic field at Quigley Stadium in honor of Coach Bernie Cox. Coach Cox and his wife were present. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Kevin Crass, Central High School supporter and parent, provided a brief history of Coach Cox's tenure at Central, including his win-loss record of 250- 93-8. Coach Cox has been head football coach at Central since 1975. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to approve the request to name the football field at Quigley Stadium in honor of Coach Cox\nDr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES A. Grant Application: Minority Initiative-Tobacco Prevention Program Jo Evelyn Elston submitted a request for the Board to authorize submission of a grant application that would provide up to $100,000 for tobacco prevention and cessation programs. The funding is provided by the Arkansas Department of Health. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the submission, Mr. Day seconded the motion and it carried 5-1 , with Mr. Kurrus casting the no vote. B. First Reading: Revision of Policy JE - Student Enrollment, Attendance and Transfers Several District policies were submitted for revision to bring them into compliance with state statutes. Policy JE, Student Enrollment, Attendance and Transfers was revised and submitted for the Board's review and first reading approval. Mr. Day moved to approve the revision on first reading. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. VIII. CURRICULUM \u0026amp; INSTRUCTION A. First Reading: Revision to Policy IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements First Reading: Revision to Policy IAA - Professional Development Review of Regulation IAA-R Review of Regulation ID-R - Student Schedules Board Policies IKF, General Education Graduation Requirements, and /AA, Professional Development were submitted for review and revision. These revisions were required in order to ensure compliance with Arkansas laws and Arkansas Department of Education Standards for Accreditation. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page 9 In addition, regulations IAA-R and ID-R were revised and provided for the Board's review and comment. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the revised policies on first reading. Mr. Rose seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Dr. Daugherty returned at 7:25 p.m. IX. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes Routine personnel changes were printed in the Board's agenda. Mr. Day moved to approve the personnel actions as presented. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. X. BUSINESS SERVICES A. Resolution Authorizing Execution of a Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB) Agreement Mark Milhollen introduced Cary Smith, account representative from Stephens, Inc. A proposal to apply for QZAB funding was presented for the Board's review and approval. These funds would provide approximately $5.8 million for HVAC projects across the District. Previous QZAB funds granted to the LRSD, were used to install energy efficient lighting in all schools and administrative offices. The deadline to apply for these funds is March 11. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the resolution to apply for QZAB funding. Mrs. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 4-2-1, with Mr. Day and Mr. Kurrus voting no, and Dr. Daugherty abstaining. B. Employee Request to Conduct Business with the District Under Arkansas law, full open disclosure is required for an employee to conduct business with the school district where he or she is employed. Jennie Cooper, owner of Soccer Plus, works at Central High School as the soccer coach. A request to provide bids on soccer supplies, uniforms and equipment was provided for the board's consideration. Ms. Cooper had earlier addressed the Board, requesting their consideration and approval. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page 10 Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the request to allow Ms. Cooper to conduct business with the LRSD. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Mr. Day requested an amendment to the motion to include a stipulation that would ensure that the vendor adhere to all District policies. Mr. Kurrus seconded the amended motion. The motion carried 6-1, with Ms. Strickland casting the no vote. Mr. Day left the meeting at 7:50 p.m. C. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve the acceptance of recent donations to schools and departments within the District. The donations are listed in the following chart. Kristian Henderson, student ex officio, read the items listed in the Board's agenda. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to accept the donated items\nMr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Bale Elementary School $100 cash for kindergarten class Calvin Brown $9,020 cash to be distributed to various UALR - Children International projects: school uniforms, winter coats, hats \u0026amp; gloves, health room equipment. materials to build outside classroom, Arkansas Rice Depot Backpack Program, I-shirts for students, and registration fees for students to participate in the LR Marathon Central High School $3,000 cash to special education Winthrop \u0026amp; Lisenne Rockefeller department Microwave oven to the basketball Paula Aultz and Kevin \u0026amp; Cathy Crass concession stand Cloverdale Magnet Middle Gift cards valued at $220. trophies Bank of America School valued at $95, and supplies for spelling bee awards $25.00 Rightsell Academy $700 cash for school uniforms and 100 Black Men teacher I student Incentives $400 cash for school uniforms and LR Black Police Officers' Association teacher I student incentives $300 cash for staff I-shirts for Race for Dr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Cortez McFarland the Cure $100 cash for materials and supplies for Andre Pendleton the spaghetti dinner \u0026amp; talent show $250.00 cash for school uniforms Rightsell PTA $50 cash for materials and supplies for Family of Charlie Carrigton the soaohettl dinner \u0026amp; talent show REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2005 Page 11 XI. Donations: (Continued) SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Rightsell Academy Washer I dryer, valued at $250 to assist Jimmerson Family Health Care in orovidina clean uniforms for students LRSD Smoke Free Homes $1 ,000 cash to purchase incentives to Wal-Mart Foundation Campaign be distributed to elementary and middle school classes with the highest number of \"Smoke Free Homes\" oledoes LRSD Homeless Education $102.93 cash for emergency services Grace Presbyterian Church Program for homeless families $75 cash for holiday assistance for homeless students D. Financial Report LRSD Association of Educational Office Professionals The monthly financial summary reports were provided to the Board as part of the printed agenda. Mr. Milhollen was present to review the reports and respond to questions. The reports were accepted by consensus. CLOSING REMARKS Dr. Brooks announced the dates in March for Benchmark and other achievement tests. XII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. on a motion by Dr. Daugherty, seconded by Mr. Rose. APPROVED: 5-~Lf-O'S Larry Berkley, Pre:,ident ~ ., . ' , olJd~_/ Katherine P. Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT March 4, 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear ODM Staff: ~OOZ I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on January 27 and February 10, 2005. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Sincerely, ~.Griffin Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Enclosures 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 10, 2005 I The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting in conjunction with the regularly scheduled agenda meeting on Thursday, March 10, 05 2005, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Vice-president Mike Daugherty presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Katherine Mitchell Bryan Day Baker Kurrus Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Mr. Berkley called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. All members of the board were present at roll call. In addition, Jeff Carr, teacher ex officio representative from Forest Heights Middle School, was also present. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting listed two items for the Board's review and consideration. A. Personnel: Appointment of Assistant Principal B. Presentation: Organizational Audit/ Review of Recommendations C. Student Hearing REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 1 0, 2005 Page2 Ill. ACTION AGENDA A. Appointment of Assistant Principal - Forest Heights Middle School The superintendent presented a recommendation to appoint Betty Mosley as the assistant principal at Forest Heights Middle School. Ms. Strickland made a motion to approve the recommendation. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 6-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the \"no\" vote. B. Presentation: Organizational Audit/ Review of Recommendations Dr. Brooks introduced Mr. Bob Klempen, Dr. Dennis Smith and Dr. Leland Newcomer, members of the organizational audit team that compiled the recommendations for restructuring the LRSD. Dr. Smith provided a PowerPoint overview of their report and described the process used to determine how to best consolidate the District's administrative staff and reduce the number of positions at the central office level. The District's internal audit team provided information during the process that was used by the auditors to develop the blueprint for change. Dr. Smith thanked them for the time they dedicated to this endeavor, and introduced them to the audience: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Mark Milhollen, Beverly Williams, Olivine Roberts, Karen DeJarnette, and Suellen Vann. Board members were provided an opportunity to ask questions and state their concerns. Mr. Berkley then asked the Board for a motion to suspend the rules in order to hear public comment. Mr. Rose made the motion, Dr. Daugherty seconded, and it carried unanimously. Dr. Mary Good from UALR, Donaghey College, addressed the board in support of the organizational audit. She noted that it was healthy to have outside eyes to review what is being done in an organization in order to gain the proper perspective for change. In her view, the restructuring would provide additional resources for students. Daniel Smythe, J. A. Fair Band Director, stated that discipline is a problem at Fair and that the assistant principals at that school are not taking responsibility consistently to make improvements. He noted that these individuals do not follow the student handbook when sanctioning students for misbehavior. Russ Carter introduced himself as a parent. He stated that he was pleased that the Board is making positive changes and would appreciate the opportunity to provide input once he has had a chance to see the plan in greater detail. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 10, 2005 Page3 Tracy Smith addressed the Board regarding problems she had experienced when trying to get an instructional aide assigned to her child's classroom. She thanked James Washington, District's Ombudsman, for assisting her with problems at Henderson Middle School. Sharon Nelson spoke in support of Tracy Smith, and problems experienced with the special education classroom at Henderson. She stated that it had become an extreme problem trying to have the students' IEP implemented. Annie Abrams cautioned the Board that \"Corporate America\" had come to the LRSD. She stated that she would pray for Dr. Brooks and that he had become a victim of the system. Phillip Wilson, teacher at Parkview, asked the Board to take a look at the support structures for teachers during the upcoming reorganization and to maintain the assistance provided by the Math and Science specialists. He stated specific support for Marcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver. Dale Lamotte stated concerns regarding the resources and programs at Parkview Magnet School. His student has been diagnosed with ADD and was retained without proper notifications. He felt that his child's rights had been violated and he thanked James Washington, Linda Watson, and Katherine Mitchell for their assistance in getting his son assigned to the ACC program. Through that assistance, he would be able to catch up and graduate with his class. Merrily Low stated that she didn't quite understand how the reorganization would help student achievement and that she and others still had a lot of questions. Lillie Teague expressed concerns regarding middle school students who are assigned to the ALC. Parents are having trouble understanding what the system has to offer their children and what they can do to help. The board recessed at 7:15 p.m. to conduct the agenda meeting, and reconvened at 7:45 p.m. for a student disciplinary hearing. C. Student Hearing Dr. Watson provided background information related to an expulsion recommendation for student Leslie Piggee. Leslie and his father appeared before the Board to appeal the hearing officer's recommendation for placement at the Alternative Leaming Center. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 10, 2005 Page4 IV. Leslie attended Hall High School and was recommended for expulsion on January 19, 2005, for physically assaulting a staff member. The teacher, Michael Clark, attended the appeal hearing and provided responses to questions from the Board. In addition, the assistant principal who filed the administrative report regarding the incident, Rhonda Dunn, was also present. Leslie admitted to having radio headphones on during class, and admitted that he refused to tum the headphones over to the teacher when requested. He admitted shoving the teacher from the doorway of the classroom when the teacher was attempting to keep him in the room until security arrived. Dr. Watson recommended placement at the ALC for the remainder of the 2004- 05 school year and the first semester of the 2005-06 school year. Based on his grades and behavior, he would be eligible for placement in a regular school at semester of the 2005-06 school year. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the administration's recommendation for placement and services through the Alternative Leaming Center. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Day, seconded by Mr. Rose. APPROVED: 3-~4-0~ Katherine P. Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 RECEIVED MAY 2 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 24, 2005, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Bryan Day Baker Kurrus Tony Rose Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL Mr. Berkley called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. In addition, ex officio teacher representative, Jeff Carr, from Forest Heights Middle School was also present. The student representative did not attend. II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOMING COMMENTS President Berkley welcomed the audience and asked Mr. Kurrus to assist with the citations and presentations. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page2 Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Superintendent's Citations The Superintendent recognized the Parkview girls' basketball team for winning the state 5-A championship for the second straight year. Coach Lahoma Howard and members of the team were present. Crystal Boyd was congratulated for receiving the tournament's Most Valuable Player award and for being chosen to be on the 2005 McDonald's All-American High School Basketball Team. Crystal is only the second female from Arkansas ever to be selected for this honor. Crystal was also named the 2005 Gatorade Arkansas Girls Basketball Player of the Year. This award is presented for athletic performance and for classroom achievement and overall character. Vicki Gonterman International Studies Specialist at Gibbs Magnet Elementary School, was recognized for her selection as one of two National Peace Corps Global Educator Award winners for 2004-05. Employees who participated in the Central Arkansas Regional Science Fair at UALR were presented with a Superintendent's citation: Yvonne Bolden, Melissa Donham, Antoinette Finney, Stephanie Jones, Jane Meadows, Daryl Newcomb, Katie Parson, Annita Paul, Randy Renaud, April Rike, Annice Steadman, Joy Thompson and Margaret Wang. Dr. Brooks extended appreciation to members of Fellowship Bible Church for providing valuable services to the Little Rock School District's Division of Exceptional Children. Fellowship Bible Church provides meeting space and use of equipment, free of charge, for in-service meetings\nthey are always willing to accommodate other LRSD departments and divisions for large group meetings and luncheons. Pastor Ray Williams was not able to attend, but Shelby Smith was present to accept the Superintendent's citation. Karen Fetzer, Executive Director of The Little Rock Rotary Clubs and other members of Downtown Rotary Club 99, Kathy Jones, Jim Harris and Roy Lamm were recognized for their annual educational service project. This year they donated 2,000 dictionaries, one for each third grade student in the LRSD, and members of the club took a morning out of their schedules to personally deliver the books to our students. The final citation was presented to the teacher representative, Jeff Carr, from Forest Heights Middle School. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page 3 B. Partners in Education: New Partnerships Debbie Milam presented one new partnership for the Board's review and approval. Chicot Elementary School, represented by Jane Harkey, in partnership with First United Methodist Church, represented by Delia Prather Mr. Rose moved to approve the partnership, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. Discussion: Long-term Budgetary Considerations Mr. Berkley requested a motion to suspend the rules to discuss long-term budgetary considerations. He also requested a presentation and overview of the administrative reorganization by the Superintendent. Mr. Rose made the motion to suspend the rules\nDr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Berkley provided background information regarding the state's obligation to pay desegregation funding through 2008 as a result of previous court settlements and negotiated agreements. The District has been dependent on these funds, approximately $30 million per year, to fund operations in magnet school and special programs related to desegregation. Concerns that the state may no longer be required to fund these programs requires the LRSD to determine how to best allocate existing funds to remain fiscally sound. It was noted that the Pulaski County Special School District had already been experiencing a degree of ''fiscal distress,\" and Mr. Berkley stated that it would be prudent and fiscally responsible for the LRSD Board and administrators to plan now for the eventual funding limitations. At Mr. Berkley's request, Dr. Brooks proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation to further detail the reorganization and restructuring of the District's administration. Board members were invited to provide input and comment over the next few weeks and months as the District evolves into a more efficiently run organization. D. Discussion: Tax Increment Financing Issues Mr. Kurrus discussed tax increment financing issues that were being considered by the state legislature. He explained that the original intent was to allow tax incentives to be provided to make improvements to \"blighted\" areas of the state by re-directing property taxes into the improvement areas REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page4 or districts. However, the resulting interpretations of the tax-increment initiatives would mean a reduction in the amount of tax funds that would be allocated to the school districts. He urged the audience and listeners to speak out in opposition to the TIF initiatives. E. Discussion: Student Attendance at Athletic Events/ Excused Absences Dr. Daugherty discussed the district's policies and procedures regarding excused absences for students to attend non-school related competitions and tournaments, specifically those that are held out of state or out of the country. He asked for the District administration to review the current practices to ensure that our students are not penalized for their participation in these positive activities. F. Remarks from Citizens Claudius Johnson addressed the Board regarding conditions and disciplinary concerns in the schools located in Southwest Little Rock. He thanked Dr. Brooks and Mrs. Strickland for taking the time to visit the schools where the most serious conditions exist. He stated that problems at Cloverdale and McClellan were not new, but had existed for several years. Concerned citizens in that area have scheduled a meeting to discuss ways in which they may contribute to improvement in these schools, and he invited members of the Board and administration to attend. Gearlene Crain discussed problems at the ALC, stating that the school \"is not working.\" She thanked the District's ombudsman for his assistance in trying to help with her concerns. Dr. Joel Anderson, Chancellor of UALR and chairman of the education committee of the Chamber of Commerce asked the Board to support Superintendent Roy Brooks' plan to make significant and rapid change in the District's operations and administrative organization. He stated that the Board's action to support the proposed changes would increase community support and confidence in the LRSD. Carla Coleman introduced herself as an employee of the Valley Drive Alert Center. She asked for assistance in making certain that our students remain at school during school hours. She stated that there are many fights between students that overflow into the community and cause safety issues for area residents. She expressed concern for the students' welfare, and asked the District to make the building principals and teachers accountable for the student's during the school day. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page5 Chiquita Munir discussed the proposed reduction of the District's gifted and talented program staff. She encouraged the board to maintain gifted programs and quality and challenging educational curriculum in order to keep the best and brightest children motivated to learn. Sarah Purtle discussed the proposed elimination of literacy specialists in the district's early childhood program office. She stated that these staff members are necessary to provide assistance and support to the classroom teachers in order to maintain high quality ratings and a highly effective early childhood program. Velma Smith expressed concerns regarding accountability at the school level. She stated that the school staff where her child attends does not make proper notification when children are absent from school, and there are not sufficient programs dealing with students who need extra help. She felt that many children, not just her own, were being left behind because the school staff members do not show appropriate levels of accountability and due diligence. Mary Zies, music teacher at M. L. King Elementary School asked for the board and administration to maintain a high quality music education program. She related research that shows students learn better and score higher on achievement tests when they are involved in band and music programs. She expressed support for Dr. Danny Fletcher, fine arts director, and asked for continuing support for music and arts programming. Tamara Baker thanked Dr. Brooks for the reinstatement of 1.5 positions in Occupational Therapy to the Division of Exceptional Children. She expressed concerns regarding hiring contract OT's in the district, and noted that higher quality service to the students is a result of having our own staff and our own system of accountability when implementing the students' individual educational plans. Bernadette Turner expressed support for the Superintendent's plan to reorganize the district's administration. She expressed concerns regarding the perception that the Board is racially divided on issues that should not be related to race. She asked the Board to separate the personalities from the issues and make decisions based on assurances that all students will be successful learners. She asked that the Board move forward as a united front and to make decisions based on what is best for children. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page6 John A. Riggs, IV, former member of the LRSD Board and President of the Public Education Foundation, provided a copy of a resolution adopted by the Public Education Foundation in support of the proposed LRSD reorganization. He thanked the Board for their service and acknowledged the difficulty of making rapid and significant change. He noted that in order to make a difference, the Board needed vision and courage, and he thanked Dr. Brooks for his leadership in this regard. Mary Ann Hansen stated support for the Fine Arts Department and noted that there was a title change for the leadership of that department included in the organizational audit recommendations. She noted that although change is inevitable, she felt that some of the proposed changes would have a negative impact on the students. Debra Moncrief thanked the Board for their courage, as she read the definition as being \"the ability to conquer fear or despair.\" She stated that she has four children in the LRSD, and that she was a long time public school supporter. She asked the Board to show courage, support the proposed changes, remain open and flexible, and keep the lines of communication open. She said there should be no agenda but to improve services provided to our students so that they all may achieve greater success. Cathy Koehler, teacher at Baseline Elementary School and member of the CTA Board, addressed the Board in opposition to the proposal to eliminate administrative positions in the LRSD. She expressed concern regarding hiring consultants from out of state to make recommendations and stated that the cuts were more than just administrative staff. She called the plan \"smoke and mirrors,\" and asked the Board to consider other options. Cynthia East, president of the ViPS Board thanked Dr. Brooks, the Board and the transition team members for their hard work. She read the Volunteers in Public Schools mission statement and reminded the Board that ViPS had served the District well for over thirty years. She thanked Dr. Brooks for reinstating one of the positions targeted for elimination, and asked that the Board and administration continue to place a high value on services provided in the schools by volunteers. Cynthia Buehling, elementary music teacher, spoke in support of Danny Fletcher and the Fine Arts department. She stated that his service to elementary music teachers had been invaluable and that under his leadership the program had made drastic improvements over the past few years. She asked for reconsideration of the cuts that were proposed for that department. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page7 Susan Underwood discussed the proposed elimination of positions in the homeless education programs. She noted that the services provided through the LRSD to homeless children and families were funded through the McKinney-Vento Act and other grant funding agencies. LRSD funds are not a part of the homeless program budget, and that program should therefore not be impacted by the reduction in staff or services. She asked the Board to encourage a \"team effort\" to provide appropriate services to our homeless students. Meredith Spann spoke for Alice Weeks who had signed up to address the Board, but could not attend the meeting. Ms. Spann read a letter written by Ms. Weeks asking the Board and Superintendent to continue funding the gifted programs at full staff. Kenneth Fisher, a maintenance employee at Cloverdale Middle School, discussed the learning environment at that school. He stated that there were some dedicated and caring staff members at Cloverdale, but that there were others who were hostile and not working in the best interest of the children or the staff. Jennifer Welborn spoke on behalf of the staff in gifted programs. She asked for reconsideration of the positions that had been proposed for elimination in that department. Martha Rodgers addressed the Board regarding proposed reductions in staff of the CARE program office. She stated that the program serves 1,200 students and does not depend on any district funds for operation. The program is self-supporting by payment of tuition for those parents who need the before and after school services. Melissa Blankenship, parent of three special needs students, addressed the Board regarding positions targeted for elimination from the Division of Exceptional Children. She stated that in order to maintain compliance with IDEA regulations, the staff should be maintained at its' current levels. She stated that there was no way to make these cuts without affecting the children's best interests. John Gerard spoke as a resident of the Mitchell neighborhood. He stated that residents of that area felt betrayed by the Board and that the Board had \"misused their powers\" by closing their neighborhood school. Diane Curry thanked Dr. Brooks for reinstating some of the positions that had been proposed for elimination, but stated that she had several concerns regarding operations at the school level. She stated specifically that she didn't feel minority students were being well served by school counselors, and REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page8 IV. that she was concerned with the elimination of positions that were specifically in place to assist parents when there were problems at the school level, such as the district's ombudsman. She reminded the board that she had run for a seat on the board at one time, and that she planned to run again when the opportunity returned. John Walker reminded the Board that they were not yet fully released from court ordered monitoring and supervision. He expressed concern that the Board had only taken two weeks to review the proposed plan for reorganization. He asked the Board to table the plan and do a more thorough evaluation of the recommendations before taking a vote. Melanie Fox expressed support for Dr. Brooks and support for the children of the LRSD. She acknowledged the difficulties and uncertainties facing the District, but stated that the changes are necessary in order to remain competitive and to make academic success the number one goal. Kim Hart, psychological examiner for the District, asked the Board to seriously consider the action item on the agenda to allow the district's examiners to be represented by the Classroom Teachers Association. G. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association No remarks. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Remarks from Board Members Mr. Rose and Dr. Daugherty requested a suspension of the rules to allow John Walker additional time to address the Board. The Board agreed by consensus without a formal vote. Mr. Walker reviewed his previous statements regarding acting in haste to implement the reorganization, and stated that the District's employees should be treated more fairly. He asked the Board to table action on the proposed reorganization to allow more time to develop another plan. Mr. Kurrus responded to some of the comments from speakers regarding the perception of a racial division between Board members. He asked that they move beyond race and understand that race is not the determining factor for every decision. Student achievement is and should remain the highest priority. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page9 Mr. Kurrus closed his remarks by saying that the Board cannot administer the District the same way that it has been in the past. School districts across the state and nation will be required to make the same kinds of tough decisions that confront the Board now, and he expressed support for the proposed reorganization. Mr. Rose also spoke in support of the reorganization. He stated that the mechanics of the proposed changes could be different, recognized that it might not be a perfect plan, but stated that he believed it was a good beginning. He also cautioned listeners that more changes could be expected in the future. He stated that the Board had hired Dr. Brooks to make rapid change and that implementation and support for the proposed plan was critical to the District's success. He said that changes could be expected in every aspect of the education business. Dr. Daugherty addressed comments made regarding the appearance of racial division of the Board. He stated that Board members are supposed to represent the people who elect them to office and that he tried to vote the way that his constituents would want him to vote\nthat the differences between the Board member's votes were ideological, not racial. He said that he was hopeful that the Board would move beyond race to do what is best for the kids and the community. Mr. Day stated that he had listened carefully to the comments made by the citizens and other Board members. He agreed with those who acknowledged that change is inevitable and that it was time to do something new and different in the LRSD. He noted that improvement would never come about by continuing to do the same things that have been done in the past. He thanked Dr. Daugherty for his comments and stated that approving the Superintendent's plan for reorganization was the right thing to do for the District's overall success. Mrs. Strickland also thanked Dr. Daugherty for his comments. She stated support for the Superintendent and for the proposed reorganization. She noted that many of the staff members who would be affected by the changes had been with the District for over ten years, and that she valued these individuals. She expressed hope that they would keep an open mind and continue to ensure a quality education for the children. Ms. Strickland thanked Dr. Brooks for having the courage to challenge the Board to remain focused on becoming the highest achieving urban school district in the nation. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page 10 Mr. Berkley expressed appreciation for the passion exhibited by all the citizens who had addressed the Board. He thanked the transition team and fellow board members for their thoughtful consideration over the past two weeks as they devoted considerable time to review of the proposed reorganization. Mr. Berkley also made remarks on the issue of race. He noted that although the Board had only two African American members, the District was made up of 70% African American students, and that he and fellow Board members devoted their service to all of the children, not just the children of one race or another. He expressed appreciation and respect for Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Daugherty, and admiration for Dr. Brooks. He acknowledged the Superintendent's passion for children and for improving the academic achievement of all of the students in the District. Dr. Mitchell thanked the audience members who had spoken earlier and those members of the community who had sent messages to her. She stated that she was not against change in the District, but that she did have reservations and concerns about how the process was conducted. She expressed belief that the Superintendent should have waited at least a year before trying to make such drastic changes\nshe voiced concerns about the selection of the consultants and appointment of the transition team members, and concern for the staff members at the Instructional Resource Center. Dr. Mitchell stated that some principals may not be prepared to assume more responsibilities without additional assistance at the building level, and she requested a delay in taking action until the people who will be most directly affected have an opportunity to be informed about where they will be assigned in the new organization. She also asked for an explanation for eliminating positions and services that are funded by grants and outside resources. Final comments from the Board included congratulations to District teachers who are participating in national board certification\nadditional recognition will be provided to these teachers at a later date. Mr. Berkley congratulated Parkview students for their performance in the production of Little Shop of Horrors. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: Mr. Kurrus made a motion to suspend the rules to reorder the agenda to allow the vote on the proposed plan for reorganization of the District's administration. Mr. Rose seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page 11 Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the plan as presented by the Superintendent. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion. Dr. Mitchell offered an amendment to the motion to delay the vote and approval of the plan until District employees had an opportunity to be informed of their new positions. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion to amend. The motion to amend failed by a vote of 1-5-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the yes vote, and Dr. Daugherty abstaining. The original motion was restated prior to the vote: to approve and accept the organizational audit report as submitted and direct the Superintendent to move forward to implement the restructuring efforts. The motion carried 6-1 with Dr. Mitchell casting the no vote. The board recessed for ten minutes and returned at 8:45 p.m. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: Dr. Daugherty offered a motion to suspend the rules to reorder the agenda to allow action on item VIII. A. Request for Psychological Examiners to form a collective bargaining unit. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion to suspend the rules, and it carried unanimously. The District's psychological examiners requested the Board's approval to form a bargaining unit for purposes of negotiating an annual employment contract within the Classroom Teachers Association. Board Policy HD, Negotiation Practices and Processes requires the Board's approval. These employees had previously petitioned the Board to be released from the Classroom Teachers Association in March 2001. Fourteen of the sixteen examiners currently employed by the district asked for the Board to reconsider the previous action, and allow them to become a separate unit represented by the CTA. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the request to form a separate bargaining unit for the Psychological Examiners\nDr. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. B. Student Assignment Report Mr. Babbs was present, but had no formal report. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page 12 C. Budget Update Mr. Milhollen briefly reported on the budgetary impact of the state legislature. He discussed current efforts to raise the District's contributions to employee health insurance and noted that no decisions had been made regarding additional funding for facilities or appropriations to cover the requirement to provide certified art and music teachers in all schools. He promised to provide additional information as it becomes available. D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects Mr. Eaton was present. Dr. Mitchell requested an update on the renovation project at Rightsell Elementary School. Mr. Eaton reported that it was still in the design and review phase, and that the target for completion of the project was August 2006. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: Mr. Rose offered a motion to suspend the rules to review and discuss the proposal on Cloverdale Elementary School. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion to suspend the rules and it carried unanimously. The Board had been provided frequent information and updates on the structural concerns and conditions at Cloverdale Elementary School. The Board was given a full report, and several possible options for continuing the educational program for Cloverdale Elementary School students. Those options were printed in the full report which was a part of the Board's agenda\nthe administration recommended approval of Option 3, which would place portable buildings on the campus of Mabelvale Elementary School and utilize eight existing and available classrooms at Mabelvale to serve the Cloverdale Elementary School students. The existing defective areas of Cloverdale Elementary School would be demolished. Ms. Strickland moved to approve Option 3, as recommended. Mr. Day seconded the motion and it carried 6-1, with Mr. Rose abstaining. E. Internal Auditors Report Mr. Becker's monthly update was printed in the Board's agenda. In addition, he reported that twelve of the District's schools would be participating in the United Way Day of Caring. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page 13 Volunteers from the community will work with the individual school volunteers and PT A representatives to complete basic improvement projects in the schools and on the school campuses. Additional information will be provided for the Board's review at the completion of this year's workday. F. Technology Update Ms. Neal was present and briefly reviewed the summary report that was part of the Board's agenda. Edline training for teachers and parents is underway at McClellan and Central, and parents are very responsive to this program, which allows them on-line access to their student's grades and attendance reports. V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS VI. A. Minutes Minutes from the regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on February 24, and from a special meeting held on March 20, were presented for review and approval. Dr. Daugherty noted a correction to the minutes of February 24, to indicate his arrival time as being 5:30 p.m. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes as corrected\nMr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES A. Grant Application: School-Based Tobacco Use Prevention Project The State of Arkansas and the Arkansas Department of Health issued a request for applications to fund school-based tobacco prevention initiatives. The LRSD received grant awards in two previous school years, and requested permission from the Board to apply for renewal of third year funding. If approved, the grant would provide up to $100,000 to be used to implement strategies and activities to prevent students from smoking or using other tobacco products. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve submission of the grant proposal. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried 5-2, with Mr. Rose and Mr. Kurrus casting no votes. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page 14 B. Second Reading: Revision of Policy JE - Student Enrollment, Attendance and Transfers Several District policies were submitted for revision to bring them into compliance with Arkansas laws. Policy JE, Student Enrollment, Attendance and Transfers was revised and submitted for the Board's review and first reading approval at the February meeting. The Board was asked to approve the policy on second reading at this time. Ms. Strickland moved to approve the revision on second reading\nMr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. C. Establishment of a Tri-District Charter School / Alternative Learning Academy A suspension of the rules was required for consideration of a proposal to apply for a conversion charter school. Mr. Kurrus offered the motion\nMr. Rose seconded and it carried unanimously. A proposal to apply to the state of Arkansas to implement and operate a tridistrict Charter school for students in Pulaski County juvenile detention facilities was presented for the Board's review. The Pulaski Alternative Learning Academy (PALA) had been operated through the Juvenile Justice center, under the direction of the three county juvenile judges. The three school districts in Pulaski County would collaborate in the operation of the charter program, which would provide educational services to students who had committed serious offenses or who had been suspended or expelled for weapons violations. The administration recommended approval of the partnership between the LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD for the purpose of establishing a conversion charter school in conjunction with the Pulaski County juvenile courts. The LRSD would serve as the lead education agency and would claim the students for funding purposes. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the administration's recommendation. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page 15 VII. CURRICULUM \u0026amp; INSTRUCTION A. Second Reading: Revision to Policy IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements Second Reading: Revision to Policy IAA - Professional Board Policies IKF, General Education Graduation Requirements, and IM, Professional Development, were submitted for first reading review and revision at the February Board meeting. These revisions were required in order to ensure compliance with Arkansas laws and Arkansas Department of Education Standards for Accreditation. Ms. Strickland moved to approve revised policy IKF on second reading. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve revised policy IM on second reading. Mr. Rose seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. B. Secondary English/ Language Arts Textbook Adoption A committee of representatives from all District secondary schools reviewed and recommended adoption of textbooks for the District's English and Language Arts programs. The texts recommended by the committee were listed in the Board's agenda, and the administration recommended adoption of the committee's selections. Mr. Rose made a motion to approve the administration's recommendations. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. C. Memorandum of Understanding - Audubon Arkansas A proposal to renew a previous Memorandum of Understanding between the LRSD and Audubon Arkansas was submitted to the Board for review and approval. The M o U provides guidelines for specific collaborative efforts between J. A. Fair and Central High Schools, and Mabelvale and Mann Magnet Middle Schools. Audubon has focused on providing environmental science and technology experiences for students in efforts to restore the Fourche Creek watershed and further development of other environmental activities for students. Mr. Day read a letter regarding the project proposal and asked for the Board's support. Mr. Rose made a motion to approve the administration's recommendation to approve the Mo U. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page 16 VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Request from Psychological Examiners Action on this item was taken earlier in the meeting by suspending the rules to reorder the agenda. B. School Calendar, 2005-06 The student calendar for the 2005-06 school year was printed in the Board's agenda and recommended for approval. Ms. Strickland moved to approve the calendar as presented. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. Personnel Changes Routine personnel changes were printed in the Board's agenda. Mr. Rose moved to approve the personnel actions as presented. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IX. BUSINESS SERVICES A. Acceptance of Report: Organizational Audit Action on this item was taken earlier in the meeting by suspending the rules to reorder the agenda. B. Updated Travel Regulations - DKC-R Updated travel regulations were presented for the Board's review. No action was required, and none was taken. C. Cloverdale Elementary School Action on this item was taken earlier in the meeting by suspending the rules to reorder the agenda. D. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve the acceptance of recent donations to schools and departments within the District. The donations are listed in the following chart. Mr. Day read the items listed in the Board's agenda. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to accept the donated items\nMr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 24, 2005 Page 17 DONATIONS: SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Central High School Equipment, valued at $589.00 to Roy \u0026amp; Louise Gutierrez LRCHS Quiz Bowl team $250 cash to LRCHS Girts' Gregg Herrning Cheerteading Squad Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Assorted supplies and materials, valued Billy-Jack's Body Shop, Inc. Technical Center at $1,500 to the Paint \u0026amp; Body Shop Romine Elementary School $500 cash to be used for student Hunter United Methodist Church incentives Williams Magnet Elementary Trees and six hours of labor valued at Clayton Johnson and Trent Roberts/ School $550. Merriweather Park Neighborhood Association in conjunction with the City of LR Urban Forestry Commission LRSD ASAP Program $1,700 cash to purchase Project Landers Auto Sales THRIVE I-shirts LRSD CARE Prooram Assorted toys valued at $200 Cheryl Stanley E. Financial Report / Approval of Annual Audit The monthly financial summary reports were provided to the Board as part of the printed agenda. In addition, the District's annual financial audit was provided for the Board's review prior to the meeting. Mr. Don Smith, representative from the auditing firm of Thomas \u0026amp; Thomas, was present to respond to questions. Mrs. Strickland made a motion to approve the audit report as submitted. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. on a motion by Dr. Mitchell, seconded by Mr. Kurrus. APPROVED: ~r~__/ Katherine P. Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDEI\\IT March 31, 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear ODM Staff: / (\\ - \" 05 I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on February 24 and March 10, 2005. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Enclosures Sincerely, ~~\"~ Diane G. Edwards Staff Assistant Office of the Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING April 5, 2005 Rt:.\" .... -. ,\nMAY 2 200 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Tuesday, April 5, 2005, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Katherine Mitchell Bryan Day Baker Kurrus Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Mr. Berkley called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. All members of the board were present at roll call. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING There was no printed agenda for the meeting. It was called for the purpose of conducting an executive session and for other personnel matters. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING April 5, 2005 Page2 Ill. ACTION AGENDA A. Appointments of Administrative Staff The superintendent presented a recommendation to appoint Hugh Hattabaugh to the position of deputy superintendent of the LRSD. In addition, Joe Mittiga was recommended to fill the newly created position of governmental and legislative affairs officer. Ms. Strickland made a motion to approve the recommendations presented, and Mr. Rose seconded the motion. Dr. Mitchell asked that the Board wait to reassign current district employees before hiring additional staff\nthere was no additional discussion. The motion carried 6-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the no vote. 8. Executive Session At 5:10 p.m., Mr. Rose made a motion to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board called Mr. Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor, into the closed session at 5:20 p.m. They returned from executive session at 5:55 p.m. and reported that no action was taken. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Rose, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. APPROVED: 4 ~ J 9-Q~ L ident L~~ Katherine P. Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING April 14, 2005 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting in conjunction with the regularly scheduled agenda meeting on Thursday, April 14, 2005, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Vice president Michael Daugherty presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Micheal Daugherty Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Berkley Bryan Day ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Dr. Daugherty called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Five members of the board were present at roll call\nMr. Berkley and Mr. Day were absent. Ex officio representatives Kathy Tatum, teacher from Henderson Middle School, and Antoine Ghoston, McClellan student, were also present. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting listed the following: A. Student Disciplinary Action B. Discussion: Personnel Appointments C. Grant Submission: Arkansas Department of Education -21st Century Community Learning Center SPECIAL MEETING April 14, 2005 Page2 Ill. ACTION AGENDA A. Student Disciplinary Action Dr. Watson presented a recommendation to expel Central High School student Nicholas A. Thomas. Nicholas was a 14-year-old, ninth grade student who was charged with possession of a firearm. He was not provided an administrative hearing at the District office because he was incarcerated at the MIiicreek Residential Treatment facility in Fordyce, Arkansas. The administration brought the expulsion recommendation to the Board in the event that Nicholas should be released from the treatment facility within the year. If he should return to the LRSD, he would be assigned to the JJC or another alternative facility for one full calendar year. Mr. Rose moved to uphold the administration's recommendation for expulsion. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. B. Personnel: Appointments of Administrative Staff Superintendent Brooks recommended existing staff members for newly created positions within the reorganized administration. Beverly Williams was recommended for the position of Senior Director for Human Resources, Olivine Roberts was recommended for the position of Associate Superintendent for Educational Services, and Mark Milhollen was recommended for the position of Chief Financial Officer. Dr. Brooks asked for the Board to accept the recommendations as presented. Mr. Rose noted that appointment of existing staff to new positions did not require a vote and that approval for the Superintendent to implement the reorganization had been granted with adoption of the organizational audit recommendations. C. Grant Submission: ADE-21st Century Community Learning Center The administration requested Board approval of a grant submission for a 21 st Century Learning Center grant for Southwest Middle School. If funded, the grant would provide $540,000 over a five-year period to establish a learning center that would offer academic enrichment activities before and after school as well as in the summer months. Ms. Strickland moved to approve the submission of the grant application. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. SPECIAL MEETING April 14, 2005 Page 3 V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:37 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Rose, seconded by Ms. Strickland. APPROVED: ~ -J. 9 -Ch L ident  ~~ Katherine P. Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 28, 2005 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 28, 2005, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Bryan Day Baker Kurrus Tony Rose Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL RECEIVED JUN - 2 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOHLTORIHG Mr. Berkley called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Six members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Daugherty arrived at 5:40 p.m. Ex officio student representative, Marcus Kennedy, from McClellan High School was also present. The teacher representative did not attend. 11. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOMING COMMENTS President Berkley welcomed the audience and asked Dr. Brooks to proceed with the citations and presentations. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 28, 2005 Page2 Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Superintendent's Citations Special recognition was given to four employees of the District who recently returned from military duty in Iraq. Dishoungh White, Jacquelyn Williams, Johnnie Davis and Eric Brandon were presented with an American flag and a citation of appreciation for their service to our country. The Annual Stephens Awards of the City Education Trust were recently announced. The Superintendent commended the District's students and teachers who were selected for this recognition: Terrie Evans, teacher at McClellan Magnet High School\nRuth Eyres, teacher at J. A. Fair High School\nCarolyn Foreman, teacher at Parkview Magnet High School\nMark Doramus, Lawrence Watts, and Gregor Nazarian, students from Central High School\nand Christopher Stewart, student from Parkview Magnet High School. The teachers received a $5,000 cash award and the students will receive a $5,000 scholarship when they enter college. Terricka Thomas, junior at J. A. Fair High School, was presented with a citation in recognition of her selection to receive President's Volunteer Service Award. Terrika volunteers her time with the American Red Cross. Dr. Brooks introduced Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services, who made a presentation to the American Red Cross on behalf of the District's Peer Helpers. Students from Booker, Geyer Springs and Gibbs Magnet were present and briefly described their participation in raising over $10,000 for Tsunami Relief efforts. Representatives of the Little Rock Chapter of the American Red Cross were present to receive the donation, and in turn provided certificates of appreciation to the students for their efforts. Mike Peterson, principal of Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center, introduced students who participated in the annual Skills USA state competitions in April. Many of the District's students who took bronze, silver and gold medals will go to national competitions in Kansas City over the summer. Instructors Darrell Berry, James Blanchard, Linda Soderling, Reba Alexander, and Carl Grummer were present. Student winners included: Advertising and Design - student Jasmine Powell was recognized as the state winner of the VICA pin design competition\nSavannah Ryan won a bronze medal in photography. Cosmetology - students Brittany Williams, Jakita Bass, Jassy Palmer, Deidra Moragne and Krystal White won gold, silver or bronze medals. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 28, 2005 Page 3 Commercial baking - DeAndrea Gooden won a gold medal, Laura Fuentes won a silver medal, and Samantha Ryan won a bronze medal in commercial baking. Diesel technology - Jonathan Motl took the gold medal, Doug Petz and Ben Necessary won the silver, and Nathan Leonard won a bronze medal. Graphic Information Systems - Kevin Williams won the gold medal and Jordan Brown won the silver. Dr. Brooks asked Katherine Wright Knight to introduce the District's current National Board Certified teachers who assisted the teachers who are going through the national board process this school year. The teachers were: Trina Bright, Chenetta Case, Terrie Evans, Ruth Eyres, Sharra Hampton, Catherine Koehler, Lou Ethel Nauden, and Mary Zies. They were given a certificate of appreciation for volunteering their time to assist others in their efforts to become nationally certified. Lenora Nunnley, student at J. A. Fair High School, was recently named a Beta Scholar by the National Beta Club. Lenora will receive a $1,000 scholarship from the National Beta Club. In addition, Lenora was selected to participate in the University of Arkansas Gifted and Talented Scholars Program. Donald Price, student at Mitchell Academy, and Shaun Wilson, student at Central High School, were recognized for being selected as winners in the annual statewide PTA Reflections Program. Donald won in the art category and Shaun won in the music category. Their work will be submitted to the national PTA Reflections awards program representing the state of Arkansas. The CAP Charitable Foundation selected Kristian Henderson, Central High School student, as a Ron Brown Scholar. Kristian will receive $10,000 per year for four years. B. Partners in Education: New Partnerships Debbie Milam presented new partnerships for the Board's review and approval. Accelerated Learning Center, represented by Carol Green and Beverly Thrasher, in partnership with: Carl Gray Henson Construction Company, represented by Kathy Henson and Hurricane Golf and Country Club Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center, represented by Mike Peterson and Allie Freeman, in partnership with Remington College, represented by Dan Snider and David Cunningham REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 28, 2005 Page4 Terry Elementary School, represented by Becky Ramsey, in partnership with: Papa John's Pizza, represented by Jill Ponder, CiCi's Pizza, and Toys \"R\" Us Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the partnerships, Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. Remarks from Citizens Tawanna Gantt addressed the Board regarding concerns related to moving a Community Based Instruction (CBI) Class from Mabelvale Elementary School. Her child attended Mabelvale, and she was opposed to any disruption of the educational environment for her child and other students who were served in that setting. Kenny Fisher addressed the Board regarding a letter he had sent to Board members concerning issues with the working conditions at Cloverdale Middle School. Mr. Fisher stated that he had spoken with District administrators, and that he felt threatened by the demeanor and actions of another employee at the school. He asked the Board to intervene to have something done to improve the conditions at that school for students and employees. D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Katherine Wright Knight congratulated all of the recipients of awards, citations and recognitions, with special recognition to the students from Metropolitan and the winners of the Stephens Awards. She thanked Dr. Brooks and Beverly Williams, Human Resources Director, for the efficient process for reassignment of the faculty and staff from Fair Park and Mitchell. She expressed concern for some of the staff members who would be displaced by the reorganization and she asked that seniority be considered when placing the secretaries and other non-certified staff members. Ms. Knight welcomed Mr. Hattabaugh and congratulated Marian Lacey on the announcement of her retirement. She thanked Mr. Berkley for leading the Board in a positive relationship with the CTA, stating, 'We are all on the same team.\" Ms. Knight reported that there are currently fourteen National Board Certified teachers in the district, and there are thirty-one candidates for certification this year. She thanked the Board for supporting this initiative, noting that the State provided funding for some of the teachers to participate, while the District made a contribution to assist others. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 28, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Berkley asked that the information on National Board certification be posted on the website, and Ms. Knight was asked to work with the communications department to facilitate this posting. IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Remarks from Board Members Mr. Rose discussed the necessity for dramatic change in the District. He acknowledged that change was difficult, that there was to be expected some \"crying and cussing,\" but he noted that once the process is allowed to take its' course, things would smooth out for the better. He spoke briefly to NCLB legislation and the ineffectiveness of teaching to a national test. He stated that teachers feel their creativity is being stifled by these requirements and he encouraged them to \"think outside the box\" in order to teach students to love learning instead of teaching them how to take a test. Mr. Kurrus reported that he had attended a Scholars Program in Fayetteville and that he had also been at the Central High School honors convocation. He congratulated all of the students who received recognitions and awards, but expressed interest in determining why some of our students don't succeed. He stated that we need to do a better job, become more efficient, in helping all students reach their full potential - - not just the high achievers, but a// students. Mr. Kurrus also noted that he had received e-mails about some of the reorganization cuts, especially in the pre-K program. He noted that we must begin to take a more global view of our services and how our services are delivered to children. Pre-K and other programs cannot operate in isolation, and must become part of the full systematic process. Dr. Mitchell commended the ViPS Board and staff for their annual awards celebration of volunteerism. She also commended Sandy Becker for coordinating a program at Henderson Middle School where twenty-seven students received computers as a reward for academic achievement and good behavior. Dr. Mitchell noted that the District had been commended for its' quality pre-K programs and expressed hope that the organizational changes will not have a negative impact on the success of the program. She requested additional information on personnel assignments, duties and responsibilities, and stated hope that we don't lose the most experienced employees in this process. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 28, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Day congratulated Dr. Lacey on her retirement, wishing her \"Godspeed.\" Mrs. Strickland welcomed Mr. Hattabaugh, and thanked the staff for working diligently through this transitional time. She stated certainty that the best years are ahead. She thanked Dr. Brooks for his commitment to positive change in the LRSD. Dr. Daugherty responded to the parent who addressed the Board earlier in the meeting regarding a classroom group of CBI students being transferred to another facility. He stressed the importance of serving students with disabilities in a safe and comfortable learning environment, and he asked the staff to conduct an impact study to determine how many students would be affected by the proposed transfer Dr. Daugherty also recognized students from Mann who recently participated in the SECME Olympiad. He noted that these students would receive additional recognition at a future Board meeting\nhowever, he wanted to congratulate them on their achievement and good sportsmanship. Mr. Berkley thanked Marian Lacey for her years of serving the students in the LRSD\nhe noted that his daughter had attended Mann while Dr. Lacey was principal. He also reported that he had attended the National School Boards Association Conference in San Diego, and counted it as a good opportunity to become reinvigorated on Board service. He expressed appreciation to Debbie Milam and the ViPS staff for the Evening for the Stars program. B. Student Assignment Report Mr. Babbs was present, but had no formal report. C. Budget Update Mr. Milhollen reported briefly on the process that would be used to formulate the 2005-06 budget. The legislative session did not provide any funding for facilities in the LRSD, and many districts across the state are facing fiscal uncertainties. The Pulaski County School District has been designated in \"fiscal distress.\" Budget packets have been sent to the schools so that building principals can begin the process of allocating their funds using their per-pupil projections. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 28, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Milhollen reported that he would be preparing for a budget worksession in late May or early June so that the Board will have an accurate overview of our present financial status. Initial steps to control spending have been taken and department budgets have been frozen so that some of the remaining 2004-05 budget can be returned to the fund balance. Mr. Day asked Mr. Milhollen to develop some various scenarios for growing the fund balance so that the Board can get a better idea of how to prepare for this necessary action. D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects Mr. Goodman reported that bids on Rightsell would be let on May 25. Dr. Mitchell asked if it would be possible for the work at Rightsell to be done over the summer months so that the students would not have to move to Badgett. Mr. Goodman responded by acknowledging the scope of the project and the difficulty in attempting to complete a project of that size over a few months time. He noted that the building was constructed in 1907, and until the contractors have done a thorough assessment, it is not known what the complete project will cost. E. Internal Auditors Report Mr. Becker's monthly update was printed in the Board's agenda F. Technology Update Ms. Neal was present and briefly reviewed the summary report that was part of the Board's agenda. In addition, she reported that parents at all high schools had been involved in training for use of Edline, on-line accessibility of student grades and attendance reports. The program is very popular and has received a lot of positive feedback. V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS A. Minutes Minutes from the regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on March 24, and from special meetings held on April 5 and April 14, 2005, were presented for review and approval. Mr. Day moved to approve the minutes as presented. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 28, 2005 Page 8 B. Board Meeting Dates The proposed schedule for regular meeting dates for the 2005-2006 school year were presented for the Board's consideration. By policy, the second and fourth Thursday of each month are designated as regular meeting dates. Exceptions are made in November and December to avoid conflict with the holidays. Mr. Rose made a motion to approve the meeting dates as presented. Mr. Day seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VI. SCHOOL SERVICES A. Elimination of the Sixth Grade Athletic Program The administration presented a recommendation for elimination of the sixth grade athletic program in the district's middle schools. Concerns regarding the district's liability in case of accident or serious injury were presented as the basis for the recommendation, along with the need to provide a greater emphasis on sixth grade academic aspects of the transition to middle school. The Arkansas Activities Association does not regulate athletic programs for sixth grade students, and the LRSD was the only district in the state to provide an athletic program for students younger than seventh grade. The recommendation will save the district approximately $80,000 per year. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the recommendation\nMs. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. Although the recommendation was approved, it was noted that the Board requested the administration to determine ways to enhance the school physical education programs for these students, increase recess time, and provide more access to after school activities to enhance health and physical fitness. B. Report: Mitchell School Update Dr. Daugherty, chairman of the Mitchell School Committee, reported that the group had met regularly to develop recommendations for use of the building. A survey was administered to the community, with 137 responses received. Dr. Daugherty briefly reviewed some of the responses, and promised to provide a copy of the complete results after the next committee meeting. The final meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 5, at the Instructional Resource Center, and board members were invited to attend. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 28, 2005 Page 9 VII. CURRICULUM \u0026amp; INSTRUCTION A. Report of Recommendations: Fair Park Early Childhood Center The administration presented a report of recommendations, The Big Picture - Fair Park Early Childhood Center, and a brief overview of the planned transformation of Fair Park Elementary School into an Early Childhood Education Center. The Board approved the conversion in December 2004, and since that time, the planning team and advisory committee have worked together to develop a plan for operating a high quality and effective early childhood education center. Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy, presented the recommendations and responded to questions. The Board accepted the report and expressed appreciation to Ms. Underwood and members of the committee for their leadership and commitment to the project. She thanked Ms. Strickland for serving as the Board's representative to the committee. VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes Routine personnel changes were printed in the Board's agenda. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the personnel actions as presented. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Dr. Brooks welcomed Hugh Hattabaugh, deputy superintendent, and provided him an opportunity to address the Board. Mr. Hattabaugh thanked the board for the opportunity to serve the students, teachers, principals and parents of the LRSD. He accepted the challenge of working toward the goals of ensuring success for every student in the District. B. Update - Reorganization I Continuation of Services: In response to a request from Dr. Mitchell, Beverly Williams presented a matrix designating the duties and responsibilities of the positions that were recently eliminated by the reorganization of the District's administration. Those duties and responsibilities have been assigned to the appropriate division, director, or department, with the assurance that essential services to students, teachers, parents and principals will not be neglected or overlooked. Specific details regarding the persons assigned to each function will be provided as the reorganization is phased in, and as directors and other supervisory staff members are assigned. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 28, 2005 Page 10 IX. BUSINESS SERVICES A. Request for Right of Way and Easement - Geyer Springs Elementary School The City of Little Rock requested a construction easement and a temporary right of way for the purpose of widening Mabelvale Pike near Geyer Springs Elementary School. The LRSD was offered $4,500 for the permanent easement for construction of a drainage system. The administration recommended approval of the request. Ms. Strickland moved to approve the recommendation. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve the acceptance of recent donations to schools and departments within the District. The donations are listed in the following chart. Mr. Rose read the items listed in the Board's agenda, and made a motion to accept the donated items. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Booker Arts Magnet Playground equipment, safety surfacing Booker Arts Magnet Elementary School Elementarv School and installation, valued at $20,492.58 PTA Central High School Equipment, valued t $405.71 for use in Robin Kratzke AP Soanish classes J. A. Fair Magnet High Decorative rock, valued at $1,500 for Jason Roy/ Altech, Inc. School use on and around outdoor classroom Geyer Springs Elementary $10,000 to be placed in a trust fund at BFI Waste Services Metropolitan Bank for ten fifth grade students (Children of Promise) for colleoe scholarshios Pulaski Heights Middle $500 cash to be used to refurbish the Hillcrest Residents Association School Parent Center Rockefeller Elementary $5,000 cash to purchase \"Climbing Rockefeller Elementary PT A School Wall\" equipment for the gym to enhance P. E. orooram C. Financial Report The monthly financial summary reports were provided to the Board as part of the printed agenda. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 28, 2005 Page 11 The Board requested information and clarification of the budget for the CARE program. In addition, there were questions regarding whether the CARE employees were actually LRSD employees, how staffing was accomplished, how the salaries were allocated, and what the District's liability would be if a student or employee were injured while in the CARE program. Additional information will be provided for the Board's review and consideration. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Day, and seconded by Dr. Daugherty. APPROVED: j-d{r\n-()5 Katherine P. Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVED MAY 2 2005 nre OFFlcE OF ur\n.,GREGATIDN MO'IIJORING April 29, 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear ODM Staff: I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on March 24, 2005 and minutes for Special Board Meetings on April 5 and April 14, 2005. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Enclosures Sincerely, AJ~ Diane G. Edwards Staff Assistant Office of the Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 12, 2005 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting in conjunction with the regularly scheduled agenda meeting on Thursday, May 12, 2005, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Katherine Mitchell Bryan Day Baker Kurrus Tony Rose MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL RECEIVED JUN - 2 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONIJORJNG Mr. Berkley called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Six members of the board were present at roll call\nMs. Strickland was absent. Ex officio representatives for the month of May were not present. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting listed the following: A. Presentation - Update: Organizational Auditors, Klempen \u0026amp; Smith B. Personnel Appointments C. Employee Disciplinary Actions SPECIAL MEETING May 12, 2005 Page2 Ill. ACTION AGENDA A. Presentation - Update: Organizational Audit Dr. Dennis Smith and Mr. Bob Klempen presented an overview of the next steps, Phase II and Phase 111, of the reorganization of the LRSD administration. At the completion of Phase I, Dr. Smith and Mr. Klempen began planning with the Superintendent and the LRSD transition team to provide a methodical process for implementing the recommended changes. As new staff is hired, and as current staff members are reassigned, their duties and responsibilities will be assigned and the process for modification of the current procedures will be implemented. Key elements to the new organization include: Staff Training, Effective Communications, Performance, Accountability and Evaluation, Strategic Planning, and Governance and Management Training. The approach will be rational, systematic and comprehensive in order to effect an overall more effective and efficient support structure for operating the District's Schools. In addition, a comprehensive review of all District facilities will be considered, with the intent of consolidating support facilities to the degree possible to contain cost and provide more effective utilization. Dr. Smith and Mr. Klempen responded to questions from the Board and agreed to provide updates for the Board's consideration as the planning progresses. B. Personnel Appointments Dr. Brooks presented recommended appointments for the following positions: Associate Superintendent for Elementary Education, Dr. Sadie Mitchell Associate Superintendent for Secondary Education, Mr. Junious Babbs Senior Director for Student Services, Dr. Linda Watson Although no official board action was required under the terms of the reorganization, Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the appointments as recommended. Mr. Rose seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. SPECIAL MEETING May 12, 2005 Page 3 C. Employee Disciplinary Actions Two employee hearings were scheduled for presentation before the Board. One employee submitted a resignation prior to the meeting and the other employee postponed due to his representation by an attorney. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Rose, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. APPROVED:5-~~ -0$ \\1~~ Katherine P. Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 26, 2005 RECEIVED JUL 12 2005 DmcEOF DESEGREGATION MONIJORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 26, 2005, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Larry Berkley presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Bryan Day Baker Kurrus Tony Rose Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Mr. Berkley called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. Ex officio teacher representative Jeff Smith from Mabelvale Middle School and student representative Allyson Wilson from Parkview Magnet High School were also present. II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOMING COMMENTS President Berkley welcomed the audience and introduced student performers from Williams Magnet School, directed by music teacher Barbara Strickland. After a brief performance, Dr. Brooks was asked to proceed with the citations and presentations. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 26, 2005 Page2 Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Superintendent's Citations Students from Pulaski Heights Middle School and their teacher, Trela Cook, were recognized for winning the state Math Counts Championship for the third year in a row. Ms. Cook was present, as were members of the team: Timothy Mellor, Jackson Berry, Yi Wu, and Charles Watts. It was also noted that Ms. Cook had recently been selected as the Outstanding Middle School Math Teacher for the State of Arkansas. Members of the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock were present along with the new Board President, Jan Hundley. Lisa Black, Executive Director of the Foundation, announced that the recent Academic Signing Day, sponsored by the Foundation and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce was a huge success. In addition, the Foundation recently presented Innovative Idea Grants to twenty one LRSD teachers. The grants totaled $58,447 and will be used to supplement classroom instruction. Patsy Lewis, a special education teacher at Mabelvale Middle School, described how she had utilized a $2,000 foundation grant to provide an outdoor environmental learning experience called \"Petals \u0026amp; Feathers,\" for her classroom of CBI students. Humberto Zarate and Larry Clemons, representatives from Siemens International, were in attendance to present an award to Nancy Rousseau, principal of Central High School. Siemens International, The College Board, and USA Today named Central High School one of the top AP science and technology programs in the country. Central High School was selected for this recognition for their growth in the number of students taking AP classes and AP exams. Only twelve schools nationwide were selected for this honor. Kate Lyford and Rachel Harpool, students at Central High School, were recently notified that they were selected as state level winners in the Discover Card Tribute Award Scholarship Program. They will each receive $2,500 and will compete in the national finals for one of nine $25,000 scholarships. Four Central High School students represented the LRSD in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in Phoenix, Arizona. Amanda Compadre placed third in the botany category, Matthew Baldwin, Xuan Yi and Ray Huang placed third in the Space Science category. Certificates of appreciation were presented to their teachers, Melissa Donham and Annice Steadman, for preparing the students and for traveling with them to Phoenix for the competition. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May26,2005 Page 3 The Superintendent presented a citation and expressed appreciation to employees of Little Rock Wastewater Utility tor their support and assistance with the Central High School Science Fair. John Jarrett was present to receive the award on behalf of LRWW employees. This company donated stadium blankets, stuffed tigers, and plastic covering for the gymnasium floor. In addition, six of the LRWW staff members served as judges in the 2005 competition. Nurse Stevie Cherepski, school nurse at M. L. King Elementary School, was introduced and presented with a citation in recognition of her being named the Arkansas School Nurse of the Year. Monica Ball, teacher at J. A. Fair Magnet High School, was introduced and invited to address the Board regarding a project that the Environmental Science students had undertaken at Fair High School. Under Ms. Ball's leadership, the students had developed an outdoor learning area, including landscaping projects, and had enlisted community volunteers to assist them in developing and supporting the projects. Dr. Anne Blackwell, chemistry teacher at McClellan Magnet High School, and Vicki Logan, biology teacher at Parkview Magnet High School, were named Teachers of the Year by Wal-Mart stores on Baseline and Bowman Road. They each received a $50.00 gift card and $1,000 cash to spend on classroom materials. Certificates of appreciation were presented to the ex officio representatives for the month of May, Jeff Smith, teacher at Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, and Allyson Wilson, student from Parkview Magnet High School. B. Remarks from Citizens Dale Charles, President of the Little Rock Chapter of the NAACP, addressed the board regarding concerns that the administration of the LRSD was being resegregated. He presented a letter to the Superintendent and to individual members of the Board. Carlette Henderson and Dr. Walter Nunn addressed the Board on behalf of the City's Racial \u0026amp; Cultural Diversity Commission. They provided a brief PowerPoint presentation which was filmed by students to encourage more student involvement in unity and diversity initiatives in the city. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May26,2005 Page4 IV. Mary Ann Hansen and her son Stephen Hansen made brief remarks to the Board. Stephen will graduate this year, and he wanted the opportunity to address the board and thank LRSD teachers and principals for allowing him an opportunity to succeed in school. He plans to go to UAPB and study music and drama. C. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Katherine Wright Knight acknowledged the recent death of Betty Floyd, an employee of the LRSD for 15 years. She recognized Mary Ann Hansen and Faye Parker, officers in the CTA. Ms. Knight expressed grave concerns regarding the paraprofessionals who received non-renewal notices. Under the provisions of NCLB, paraprofessionals or teacher's aides are required to have an Associates Degree, 60 college hours, or pass the Praxis exam in order to remain employed in the classroom as an instructional aide. She asked the Board to determine if there was any way that these employees could be assisted or allowed to continue to work until they could pass the test. Ms. Knight closed by thanking Beverly Williams and Mark Milhollen for assisting the CTA in resolving a problem with salaries that existed in the Child Nutrition Department. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Remarks from Board Members Ms. Strickland thanked the teachers and others who work in the schools\nshe wished them a happy and restful summer vacation. Mr. Rose reflected on the comments made by Ms. Knight and suggested that there should be a way to assist the paraprofessionals in paying for the retakes of the Praxis exam. He further stated that he was not in favor of making any cuts to the district's arts program. Mr. Kurrus thanked Ms. Knight for her comments and stated that NCLB rules regarding the paraprofessionals really \"didn't make any sense.\" In addition, he responded to Mr. Charles' comments regarding diversity by noting that he was more concerned about the District having more one-race schools and becoming a one-race district than he was about the color of the school's administrator. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May26,2005 Page 5 In addition, Mr. Kurrus thanked the teachers from Mabelvale and Fair who presented information on the environmental science programs, and all the teachers in the district for the work they do for all the LRSD students. He wished the students, parents, teachers and administrators a happy safe summer break. Dr. Mitchell reported that she had attended several end-of-the-year school programs. She mentioned the Metropolitan ACC awards assembly and the advisory council meeting of the Metropolitan partners. She thanked the staff at the ACC and credited them with decreasing the dropout rate of the LRSD. Dr. Mitchell reported that she had also attended the kindergarten graduation program at Rightsell Elementary School and the Taste-Test at M. L. King Elementary School. She closed by acknowledging all the retirees listed in the agenda and thanked them for their dedication and devotion to the LRSD. Mr. Berkley thanked the staff members who were involved in the Teacher of the Year Banquet. He also thanked the Public Education Foundation and Chamber of Commerce for sponsoring the Academic Signing Day. B. Legal Update Chris Heller was present to provide a brief overview of the District's pending legal issues. He reminded the Board that he, Dr. Brooks, and Karen DeJarnette had attended the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals hearing in St. Louis on April 12. A decision from the Court is expected within two months, and Mr. Heller noted that it was important to the LRSD for the decision to be soon in order for the District to avoid having to repay some of the state desegregation loan. We have submitted quarterly reports to the Court as directed by Judge Wilson's final Order pending the appeal and are complying with all directives specified by the Order. Mr. Heller also noted that the LRSD had filed an objection to the budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. ODM has had a reduced amount of monitoring and oversight responsibility for the LRSD, and it seemed unfair to continue to pay the largest amount of the expense to run the monitoring office. North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts share in the cost of operating the ODM and are still involved in pending desegregation issues over and above the remaining one area, Program Evaluation, where the LRSD is being monitored. The PCSSD has challenged the NLRSD on the number of magnet school transfers allowed. Mr. Heller noted that the LRSD has taken the position that the current method of allocating seats for these two districts is working and that we would object to any change in the process. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May26,2005 Page 6 In the Lakeview case, Mr. Heller reported he felt certain that a Special Master would be appointed to review the case and suggested that the LRSD would want to be involved if the case goes back before the Supreme Court. Mr. Heller reported that other cases currently pending involve individual students or employees and should not be discussed in a public meeting. Board members were invited to contact Mr. Heller if additional information is needed on any of these c\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_59","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":["2005-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","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/59"],"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 STATE CAPITOL MAU  UITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.sta te.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education January 28, 2005 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 VE JAN , 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATIO 1r10NITORfNG Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 January 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. s~\no ~~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 January 2005. Respectfully Submitted, \u0026lt;..$-c6tt Smith, Bar # 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 January 28, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 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 tv1arch 15, 1994, in complying with provisions '\" i.1 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 January 31, 2005 Based on the-inform-ation-available at December 31\n200{ the.ADE calculated the State Founclatiori, Fu.nding for .FY 04/05, subject to periodi_c'ad]ustmeh~t\n.. -- 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 January 31, 2005 sased on1h'e'fr,tormaiiortavai1a61e'afDecem6er '\"s 1-\n-206',(tfie AbEcarculafecfior FY,04/05, subject .to'. periodic.adj~stn,~nts\n\u0026lt; - . - ---- -- C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2005 On December 31, 2004\n' distributions of State Foundation Funding for F:)'J)~/05 were as follows: LRSD - $29,583,040 NLRSD - $15,138,256 PCSSD - $27,160,095 The allotments ofState.Fouridatiori FundinQ calculated for FY~04/05 at .D~cember 31, 2004\nsubject_to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD : $65,082,694 NLRSD - $33,304,168 PCSSD - $59,752,214 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 January 31, 2005 Based-on ,t~e J[lfO~atior,ayglfiabie\nt~e0ADE-~alcu)at~p ~t DecembEir 3L.iP.P~].QI EC04/,05, _subjec.t_to:ii~riq_dic ~adjustrjleots, 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 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 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 N.,.) arch 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timeUnes 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 January 31, 2005 sased onthe.-informai1on'avaiia6ieai becemi\u0026gt;ers1' '2ob'4'1h-.-EEl\\cfi:'caicu1a'iedl11e  '\n .,.-\n.-,.-.)~  ' '-'- . .... :.-1,.:-. .:\".,-.,J ::.  -.~ , .  ': : .. .. :. ~ ......... ,.- . .._ , --,i~'.\"-r\"-..,, ........ , ~~----. --~---- State  Founda~ibo, F Lindirig .foJJ:Y, 9\n4/05\n:subj~c!. 10:pe[ioqi~f ~~j1,istm1\n!:iJ1~1 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 I' I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. {Contin_ued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2005  .,. ,., ,.., . :,.  :r, ,-. ,..,.,.,,,, r . .,. ....... ,- . - ,, ,...- ir\n. , ..,.. ~  er.::,, .-\"'l\nY.-,i-   ,.\n-,..- ,-~ ~,..  7'--: ...,.~\nr'.~-c,,r,::: '- ,.-- r\n- - .... - , .  :.,......,-., ~,-:- ... :\n. \"i ~- --\u0026gt;,.:,11,{-...,~~x:r11:,\n,,9~~ Based on the infcirmatioiiavailable'at Deicember 31 l 2004\nthe ADE :calculatea for FY,04i05, subjecHo'. periodic.adj4stments\n . ,\n    - - -  ..    .. --~---M C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2005 On December 31 ,-2004\n distributicms of. State )=oundation Funding for FY ~6~iO.!? were as follows: . LRSD - $29,583\n04() NLRSD ~ $15, 138,25.6 PCSSD_~ $2Z,l60,0~5 The allotmeijts_ofStateJ=ouridation_Fuhd1ni:i calculatedfor F'{!)4/05 at .Dijcernb~r 31\n:2 004\nsubject_to periodic adjustments\nwere-~~.f ollows_\nLRSD -Jss:082,s94 NLRSD - $33,304,168 PCSSD ~ $59,752,2~4 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 January 31, 2005 sas.~d-o~~)h~ )rf~r.fu~E~ra5!~ff~Pi~\n,:IB,f:~}2Eial~~f at~Jtoeqfilrl~etf~t'~?9_051.9r EY.\n,.04/.Q9\n~.u.!?J~P~.!cf P.i:!tiQ.c\nf i_q)!'djt\ni_stm~tl.ts,\nE. 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 January 31, 2005 Based on the'.ir:iforn1~Jion:avaiiab1e'\n'i11e_1oi\n'cafouJaie~ at O~cem~~L3i,'ggpf fo( r=y_ 0~tl05\nsubj~p} 't_Q_periodi~'adjui1rn.ents. 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 LASO based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. G. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2005 Based on a Court Order on August 27, 2004 for FY 03/04, an adjustment was made in the expense per child. A final magnet payment of 56,074 for FY 03/04 was made to the LASO on Novembe'h 0, 2004. Based on the information available,'the ADE.calculated at December 31, 2004_for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2005 Distributions for Pf. 04/05 at December 31, 2004, totaled $6,015,3.06. Allotrnen.t calculated for FY 04/05 was $12,305,271 _ subject to periodic adjust[TleQJ~\nH. 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 January 31, 2005 Calculated for FY 02/03, 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 January 31, 2005 Distributions.for 5',04/05-a(Oecember 31, 200,f_.were~ LRSD - $1,659,652 NLRSD - $1,508,620 PCSSD .- $4,635,(36 The allotments calculated for FY 04/05 at December 31, 2004,-subject to pe~iQdic adjustments\n,were: LRSD ~ $4,149,129 NLRSD - $3,77~ ,548 PCSSD - $11,589\n336 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 January 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 January 31, 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. 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 January 31, 2005 In February 2004, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 03/04 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2004, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $2,487,682.66 NLRSD - $526,000.00 PCSSD - $1,454,813.26 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 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 January 31, 2005 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. 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 January 31, 2005 (Continued) In July 1998, each district was asked to submit ~m 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:~ 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 January 31, 2005 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. 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 January 31, 2005 (Continued) 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 h'~ve been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. 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 type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. 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 January 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. Specifications for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M school buses have been forwarded to State Purchasing for bidding. Bids will be opened on May 12, 2003. The buses will have a required delivery date after July 1, 2003 and before August 8, 2003. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The'\nbuses 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. 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 January 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 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. 8 / ' I - -,.1,,,. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 January 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 January 31, 2005 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 1 O, 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 January 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 January 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. i \\ i 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of January 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. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2005 (Continued) 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. 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 January 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 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 January 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 IV)onitoring 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 January 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\n\\echnical 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 ~~ . 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 January 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. i \\1 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 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 January 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. t\\: 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 January 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 Gr0Li1l'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 January 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 1 0, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 1 0. 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 1 0, 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 January 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 Clearence 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 Desegreg'ation 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 De~egregation 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 January 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. 20 111. 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 January 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 January 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 January 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. C. 1 . Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailetJ 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 January 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 January 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 January 31, 2005 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identifiedby 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 January 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 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 Noverriber 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 January 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 desegregati_on. i.,1 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 January 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. ~1-I 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 1 O, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 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 204-8 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 January 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 January 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. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2005 Ongoing 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 January 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 January 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 for(TJat. 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 January 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 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 January 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 AD E'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 January 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 January 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 APE 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 January 31, 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. ,.:,.1 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 January 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 1 O, 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. '\"i1 On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of ~eptember. 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 January 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. i\\1 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 1 O, 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 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 January 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 mon~h of December. l- J.1 On February 1 O, 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 January 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. i! , 1 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, 200s\nt~'e A'rk.~iisas s'iaie'soard ofEclucatiorfreyiewed ancfappro~~fti~ PMT and its executive _sunimaryJ9r ttie~mon~hs_'ot No\\J~m~er)ir:id:Qe~emt:f~r\" 38 J .., \\ 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 January 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. 39 \\ . \\ l . l ...... - \\ 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 January 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. i-\\1 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. 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 January 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 for1the 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. 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 January 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 Magn'et 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 January 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 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2005 search for research evaluating 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. \n, D. 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 January 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 January 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 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 a,n,, ,d 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. 44 VI.  .. \\: REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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. ,.:,1 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. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 ACT AAP 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 ACTAAP 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. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2005 (Continued) On January 1 O, 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 ACTAAP 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. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 ACT AAP 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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 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. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 1 O 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. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 L:EP 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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 1or 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 hei1d 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. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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'~ 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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 Cn~cklist 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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 curriculm, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. \n, 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. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 Y\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_864","title":"\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' 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":["2005-01/2005-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","School boards","School employees","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' 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/864"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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_1767","title":"Court filings regarding Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools, Little Rock School District (LRSD) filing quarterly update, and Office of Desegregation Management (ODM) report.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-01/2005-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Little Rock School District","School districts","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education","Joshua intervenors","Education--Curricula"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools, Little Rock School District (LRSD) filing quarterly update, and Office of Desegregation Management (ODM) report."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1767"],"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":["58 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\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, two notices of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing quarterly update; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, \"\"Update of Discipline Sanctions and Compensatory Programs Aimed at Dropout Prevention in the NLRSD\"\"; 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.    ,. Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU.  UTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education Jan~ary 28, 2005 Mr.M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 JAN 2005 OFFIC[ OF DESEGREGMlOil ;110NITORING Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 January 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sie7~o. ~~-rk General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson 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 January 2005. Respectfully Submitted, tt Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 1501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on January 28, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Arkansas  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU  UTILE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education February 28, 2005 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 I/ ' ,') 1 - ~ 05 I . . l. 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 February 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. ~3~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier -ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair -JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair -Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson 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 February 2005. Scott Smith, Bar # 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 February 28, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 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 February 28, 2005 Based on the information availabl~ at January 31, 2005, the .ADE .calculated the State Foundation Funding for F,Y 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 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. IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURi: (, '. ?ii7-j EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKA:t-f,~ ~-\u0026lt; - __ ,..,,  WESTERN DIVISION  C .t,._   ' \u0026lt;\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MAR ? 2005 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS OFFI F KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DES GREGATIO!l [,,ONITORING LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING OUARTERL Y UPDATE INTER VEN ORS Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice ofFiling Quarterly Update dated March 1, 2005 states: 1. The attached document is the second quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. It has been provided to the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004). 2. LRSD is filing this Quarterly Update so that the Court may be aware of the compliance work done by LRSD to comply with the Court's Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits its Quarterly Update as required by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY:~k CopherHcler CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on the 1st day of March, 2005 : Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 istopherHeller Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua March 1, 2005 MAR 2 2005 OFFICtOF DESEGREGAT/Oi'J ;,:ONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO.1 ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 Page I of 18 Introduction This is the second quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy: A. \"LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE.\" B. \"The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process\". which \"must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program.\" C. \"During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) formal step 2 evaluations.\" D. \"PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations; (2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants ... and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support ... \" E. Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-American students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a program's effectiveness. F. \" . .. PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval . . . by December 31, 2004.\" G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . .. during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year . . . to ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1. .. \" H. (ODM's responsibilities.] I. [Joshua's responsibilities.] J. Four step 2 program evaluations due to the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due October 1, 2006. K. Compliance Report due October 15, 2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2 of 18 Status as of March 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported its action in the first quarterly written update, December 1, 2004. This team has continued its duties as described below, in this second quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. At its December 16, 2004 session, LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process devised by PRE. The final draft was in Appendix B of the first quarterly written update. C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare four formal step 2 evaluations. Credentials of Drs. Catterall and Ross were in this section and Appendix C of the first quarterly written update. Both agreed to prepare step 2 evaluations of LRSD programs. Their progress is described below in Section D. D. PRE (1) oversees the preparation of the step 2 evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. PRE continued discussions with Dr. Steven Ross of step 2 evaluation designs for thethree LRSD programs which he will conduct, reported December 1, 2004-Compass Learning (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and Smart/Thrive (S/f). By January 14, PRE and Dr. Ross agreed on evaluation designs, whose descriptions are in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. Negotiations also continued in Janua,ry with Dr. James Catterall regarding evaluation of YearRound Education (YRE), the fourth step 2 evaluation for 2004-2005. Its design, too, is in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. At the monthly Leadership Team (school principals) meeting, on January 19, PRE staff alerted LRSD principals about the four evaluations and answered their questions. At the February 16 Leadership Team session, Dr. Ross and his team described designs of his three evaluations and answered questions. After his presentation to the principals on February 16, Dr. Ross and his team met with PRE, each program director, and two other outside experts (Drs. Linda Dorn and Gail Weems, both of UALR's College of Education). During these discussions, ODM officials and counsel for Joshua Intervenors provided feedback and assisted with the final design of data collection instruments. Page 3 of 18 PRE has established four evaluation teams, led by PRE members and composed of people with skills and experiences appropriate to their respective evaluations. Parent and teacher representatives are also members of these teams, whose first formal meeting was arranged for February 24. Dr. DeJarnette will lead the evaluation of Compass Learning; Ms. Malcolm, Smart/Thrive; Dr. Williams, Year-Round Education; and Mr. Wohlleb, Reading Recovery. Members' names and results of that meeting will appear in the third written quarterly update, due June I. E. Evaluation will have (1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who submit data for evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved achievement by African-American students, and (3) succinct explanations of how each change will increase its respective program's effectiveness. Designs of the evaluations, furnished in the appendix to this report, will include 1) records of the teachers and administrators who furnish data, opinions and guidance, and their grade levels and positions; 2) data in addition to race/ethnicity and test scores that will enable the evaluators to find reasons for differences in academic achievement and recommend changes; 3) bases for explanations of how these other factors impact on academic achievement and how program changes will bring about improved academic achievement. F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. Names of the four programs evaluated during 2004-2005 and the process were delivered before they were due last year and so reported in the first written quarterly update. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December I, 2004. PRE submits this one on or before March 1, 2005 and will submit its third by June 1, 2005. Page 4 of 18 Appendix C. Designs of Step 2 Evaluations of2004-2005 Reading Recovery (RR) Compass Leaming (CL) Smart/Thrive (SIT) Year-Round Education (YRE) Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 Page 5 of 18 Reading Recovery Program Description RR is one of the eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by various LRSD schools. Restricted to the first grade, it provides systematically designed, individual tutoring to students identified as having the highest need for supplemental support. LRSD funds are used to support the RR Program. Currently, 17 elementary schools are implementing RR: Number of Reading Percent African- Percent Recovery Number of Number of American Free/Reduced School Teachers Teachers Students Students Lunch Students Booker 4 55 496 53 63 Carver 2 43 496 52 53 Chicot 3 44 536 73 86 Dodd I 27 261 54 69 Franklin 2 35 387 96 94 Geyer Springs I 23 299 88 81 Gibbs 2 30 310 53 44 Meadowcliff I 24 349 78 85 Mitchell I 22 156 96 92 Otter Creek 1 31 511 60 56 Rightsell 1 25 262 100 88 Wakefield 2 29 451 78 92 Watson 1 34 456 96 93 Williams 2 36 461 52 34 Wilson 1 27 285 89 92 RR Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Has the RR program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Whole School Sample: A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed in Grades 1-3. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. The analysis will possibly examine (a) all 17 schools relative to the entire district elementary-school database or (b) a stratified random sample of RR schools relative to matched control schools. Pretests: DRA or DIBELS (whichever has the more usable database), adm inistered in Kindergarten. Page 6 of 18 Posttests: 2004-05 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading and Math Subtests. B. RR Subsample: Within each of the RR schools, first- to third-grade students who participated in RR as first graders will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status (RR vs. non-RR), and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 17 schools implementing it in 2004-05? RR teachers will be interviewed by phone. First-grade teachers and other grade-level teachers will be surveyed. Observations of RR sessions will be at a sample of schools. A minimum of IO observations will be conducted. To the extent resources are available, an attempt will be made to observe at all 17 sites. 2. What is the level of participation in RR by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 3. What is the progress demonstrated by AA and other student participants in RR in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percent of students are \"discontinued\" or \"not discontinued\"? RR teachers will be asked to complete \"Achievement Profiles\" (to be developed) for each 2004-05 RR student. The Achievement Profiles will be one-page forms designed to require only a few minutes to complete. Procedures will be written through consultation with PRE and RR experts in LRSD. 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR teacher interview will directly address this question. 5. What are the perceptions of non-RR first-grade teachers and other teachers in the schools regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR School Teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. Respondents will identify their status by grade and role. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A RR Parent survey will be conducted via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 7 of 18 Summary of RR Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question I Participants Data Sources Primarv Question I . What are the effects of  All grades 1-3 students  DRA or DIBELS (pretest participation in RR on AA at 17 RR schools and in K) student achievement? other elementary  2004-05 !TBS Reading schools and Math subtests  RR student participants (posttest in grades 1-3) within above samples Step 2 Questions 1. What is the quality and level  All RR teachers  RR Teacher Phone of implementation of RR at the  All teachers at RR Interview 17 schools implementing it in schools  RR School Teacher 2004-05? Survey (faculty meeting)  RR Achievement Profiles  One-hour RR Tutoring Observation (min. of 10 schools) 2. What is the level of  All RR schools  School records/archival participation in RR by AA data students relative to other ethnic groups by school? 3. What is the progress  All RR teachers  RR Achievement Profile demonstrated by RR students in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are \"discontinued\" or \"not discontinued\"? 4. What are the perceptions of  All RR teachers  RR Teacher Interview RR teachers re: RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of  All RR school teachers  RR School Teacher regular first-grade teachers and Survey (disaggregated by other teachers re: RR program I st grade vs. other grades) implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of  Parents of RR students  RR Parent Survey parents/guardians of RR students re: program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 8 of 18 Compass Learning Program Description Compass Learning (CL) is a computer-based program designed to develop students' skills in reading, writing, and spelling. Additional purposes are to support teacher management of student performance, personalize instruction, and connect communities of learners. The themebased lessons and activities provided by CL take a cross-curricular approach and offer a \"real world\" context for learning. The Compass Management system assessment is either automatic or customizable. Technology Specialists assist classroom teachers with any technology question or need. In the 2004-05 school year, 21 LRSD elementary schools, two middle schools, and the Accelerated Learning Center (high school) utilize CL programs: Percent Percent Number Number African- Free/Reduced of of American Lunch Schools Teachers Students Students Students Bale Elementary 27 319 82 88 Booker Elementary 55 605 53 63 Brady Elementary 28 318 78 80 Carver Elementarv 43 496 52 53 Chicot Elementary 44 536 73 86 Fair Park Elementarv 19 187 75 73 Forrest Park Elementary 25 361 20 14 Franklin Elementary 35 387 96 94 Fulbright Elementary 38 554 26 17 Geyer Springs Elementary . 23 299 88 81 Gibbs Elementary 30 310 53 44 Mabelvale Elementary 25 257 80 88 McDermott Elementary 26 406 62 88 Mitchell Elementary 22 156 96 92 Otter Creek Elementary 31 511 60 56 Rightsell Elementary 25 262 100 88 Rockefeller Elementary 35 453 67 66 Stephens Elementary 39 499 95 91 Wakefield Elementary 29 451 78 92 Williams Elementary 36 461 52 34 Cloverdale Middle School 59 682 82 66 Henderson Middle School 60 630 82 70 Accelerated Leaming Center 14 178 92 15 Page 9 of 18 CL Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Quasi-experimental design: Due to the insufficient sample size and unique nature of the high school (n = 1), the quasi-experimental analysis will be conducted with the elementary (n = 21 schools) and middle (n = 2) school samples only. A descriptive examination (see below) of test scores for the high school will also be conducted to determine trends and patterns at that site. Specifically, the quasi-experimental design will compare CL elementary and middle schools to other schools in the district, most likely by multiple-regression analyses in which the dependent variable is posttest (2004-05) scores (Arkansas Benchmarks in grades 3-8, and Iowa Test of Basic Skills in grades K-8) and covariates are pretest (pre-program) test scores, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Pretests: Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) (for grades K-8), Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 4-8) Posttests: 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math Subtests (for grades 1-8); Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 3-8). B. Descriptive design: For the one high school using CL,. whole-grade pretest and posttest means on Arkansas Benchmarks, ITBS, Grade 11 Literacy Exam, and Algebra I and Geometry End-of-Course (EoC) exams will be compared to district norms. The purpose will be to assess absolute and relative performance as possible correlates of CL implementation. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 24 schools implementing the program in 2004-05? Phone interviews will be conducted with (a) the LRSD CL Coordinator and (b) a sample of IO school Technology Specialists (the I high school, the 2 middle schools, and a random sample of 7/21 elementary schools). All teachers at the 24 schools will be surveyed so that site-specific data regarding implementation will be available. Observations of CL laboratory sessions will be conducted at a sample of JO schools (the I high school, the 2 middle schools, and 7 of 21 elementary schools). At half of the observed schools (n = 5), a brief (20-minute) student focus group (n = 5 to 7 students) will be conducted to ascertain students' perspectives on their experiences in using CL (nature of activities, usefulness, enjoyment, etc. ). 2. What is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools involved? Page 10 of 18 Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? This question will be addressed via the Technology Specialist Interview and closed-ended and open-ended items on the CL Teacher Survey. 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A CL Parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 11 of 18 Summary of CL Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Particioants Data Sources Primarv Question 1. What are the effects of  Students at 23 CL  ITBS as pretest for Grades K-9 participation in CL on the elementary and middle  Arkansas Benchmarks as posttest achievement of AA students? schools and comparison for 3-8) schools  2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math  Whole grade-level means subtests (grades 1-9 posttests) at the CL high school.  2004-05 Grade 11 Literacy Exam ( as posttest)  2004-05 Algebra I and Geometry EoC Exams (as posttest) Steo 2 Questions 1. What are the quality,  All CL school teachers  CL Teacher Survey (faculty nature, and level of  10 Technology Specialists meeting) implementation of CL at the (1 high school, 2 middle  Technology Specialist Phone 21 schools implementing the schools, and 7 randomly Interview program in 2004-05? selected elementary  District CL Program Coordinator schools) Phone Interview  District CL Program  Two-hour CL Laboratory Coordinator Observations (10 schools: 1 high  5 student focus groups ( 1 school, 2 middle schools, 7 high school, 1 middle randomly selected elementary school, 3 elementary schools) schools)  20-min. Student Focus Groups (n = 5-7 students), one each at 5 of the IO observation schools 2. Whatisthelevelof  All CL schools  School records/archival data participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools concerned? 3. What are the perceptions of  All CL school teachers  CL Teacher Survey teachers and Technology  10 Technology Specialists  Technology Specialist Interview Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of  Parents of CL students  CL Parent Survey parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 12 of 18 Smart/Thrive Programs Program Description The Smart/Thrive (Sff) program was designed as an intervention for 8th - and 9th -grade AfricanAmerican students who are lacking the knowledge, skills, and/or confidence required for success in Algebra I. S/T currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total AfricanAmerican student population enrolled in Algebra I classes. During the 2003-2004 academic year, 264 students participated, studying pre-algebra for two weeks during the summer (Smart Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year (Thrive Program). Various local grants have funded this program since 1999. Currently, SIT serves students from all eight LRSD middle schools: Percent Percent African- Free/Reduced Number of Number of American Lunch Middle Schools Teachers Students Students Students Cloverdale 59 682 82 86 Dunbar 58 747 61 57 Forest Heights 59 688 77 62 Henderson 60 630 82 70 Mablevale 57 634 81 75 Mann 64 873 52 37 Pulaski Heights 57 708 57 47 Southwest 55 493 94 87 srr Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the srr programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students?  A treatment (2 levels)-control student, pretest-posttest design will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Three types of Algebra I students will be compared depending on their program enrollment: 1. No program 11. Smart program only 111. Both Smart and Thrive programs  Pretests: 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 6th and 8th grade Benchmark tests. Page 13 of 18  Posttests: 2004-05 (ITBS) Math Subtests; Algebra I EoC Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by AA students? Student records/archival data of 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. In addition to descriptive information, levels of participation will be gathered as a potential variable for the student achievement analyses. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? Approximately five random observation visits will be conducted during the Saturday Thrive Program sessions in 2005. 3. What are the perceptions of SIT Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to SIT Tutors. 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to Algebra I teachers. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses of SIT? A questionnaire will be administered to student participants. A sample of them will also be selected to participate in approximately 3 - 5 student focus groups, each comprised of approximately 5 students. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/ guardians of SIT students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? An SIT parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 14 of 18 Summary of Sff Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Participants Data Sources Primary Question 1. What are the effects of  All 8th and 9th grade  2003-2004 benchmark participation in the Smart Algebra I students  2004-05 ITBS Math and/or Thrive Programs on subtests; Algebra I EoC AA student achievement? Suoolemental Questions I. What is the level of  All program participants  School records/archival participation in Smart and data Thrive bv AA students? 2. What instructional  SIT teachers and students  Observations of tutoring strategies are used during the sessions tutoring sessions? 3. What are the perceptions of  All SIT Tutors  SIT Tutor Questionnaire SIT Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of  All Algebra I teachers  Algebra I Teacher Algebra I teachers regarding Questionnaire program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of  Program participants  SIT Student Questionnaire participating students  Focus Groups regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of  Parents of SIT students  SIT Parent Questionnaire parents/guardians of SIT students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 15 of 18 Year-Round Education Programs Program Description Year-Round Education (YRE) rearranges instruction and vacations so that they occur throughout the year, for more continuous learning and frequent breaks. YRE has emerged nationally as a way to educate all students better, regardless of ethnic backgrounds, social strata, or academic performance. LRSD's design is a single-track, 45-10 calendar where all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. (The \"45-1 O\" means 45 days in a quarter, then IO days of intersession/vacation. Intersession is a five-day program and attendance 1s voluntary.) Currently, five elementary schools are implementing YRE: Percent of Percent Students Eligible for Elementary Number of Number of African- Free/Reduced Schools Teachers Students American Lunches Cloverdale 26 360 77 89 Mablevale 25 257 80 88 Mitchell 22 156 96 92 Stephens 39 499 95 90 Woodruff 21 235 91 86 YRE Evaluation Questions and Design Primary Evaluation Question: I. Has the Year-Round Education (YRE) Program effectively improved and remediated the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? Whole-school sample: In a treatment vs. control school, pretest vs. posttest design, the analysis will control for pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income (eligibility for free or reduced lunch program). Subsample: Within each YRE school, evaluators will compare achievement gains of students who participate in intersession to predicted gains (based on category of school, pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income). Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? Page 16 of 18 I  Evaluators will interview YRE teachers by phone and observe YRE classrooms (during both the regular session and intersession). 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The YRE teacher interview and the YRE teacher survey will address this question via both closed- and open-ended items. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Evaluators will administer a survey to YRE program participants. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A Parent survey will address this question via a questionnaire including both closed- and open-ended items. Page 17 of 18 ... Summary of YRE Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Participants Data Sources Primary Question: 1. What are the effects of YRE All grades at YRE schools and other Benchmark and ITBS participation on achievement of AA elementary schools. Year Round students? Education intersession student participants within above samples. Suoo/emental (Step 2) Questions: 1. What are the quality and level All YRE teachers Teacher phone of implementation of intersession interview instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of Selected teachers and students Classroom observations implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of All YRE schools School records/archival participation in YRE Programs by data AA students relative to other ethnic groups? 4. What are the perceptions of All YRE teachers YRE teacher interview Year Round Education teachers and survey regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of YRE students grades 4 and 5 YRE student survey participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of Parents of YRE students YRE parent survey parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 18 of 18 I  I I I I I I I I I I I I I FILED U.S. O!ST'\u0026lt;iCT COURT EASTERN DiSTi'\u0026lt;1CT ARKANSAS MAR 1 8 2005 UPDATE OF DISCIPLINE SANCTIONS AND J~~ES W. McC8KMACK, CLERK COMPENSATORY PROGRAMS AIMED AT DROPO~ PREVENTION '.)::? c~::R.t\u0026lt; IN THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT March 18, 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Margie L. Powell Monitor Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL , unu: ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 , (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education March 31, 2005 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 72?03-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 March 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, _g~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 March 2005. Respectfully Submitted, ScottSmitir,13ar # 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 March 31 , 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner? Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-15 l 0 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Scott Smith     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_981","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' 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":["2005/2006"],"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 discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' 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/981"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS District Level FRANCICAL J. JACKSON Director of Student Affairs RECEIVED APR2 3 2007 OFFICEOF DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING IJ I I I I I I I I i i 1 1 I RECEIVED Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Summary APR2 3 2007 OFFIOCFE Presented by Fran Jackson, Director of Student Affairs DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING The Analysis of Disciplinary Actions is analyses of data showing numbers by school, race, and gender in relation to enrollment in each school and the district as a whole. This report compares the data with that of the previous years. The actions are categorized as Black Males, Black Females, Non-Black Males and Non-Black Females. They are shown in the following categories: Actions 09 SAC (Student Assignment Class) 10 Home Suspensions 11 Boys Club / ASAC (Off Campus Suspension-Argenta Student Assignment Class) 12 E.I.C. (Intervention Classroom) 17 Expulsion A ten year comparison is provided at the end of the report to give a wide view of the discipline actions over a longer period. An analysis at the District level shows a decrease in actions in the following areas: Black Males E.I.C 23.6% Expulsion 63.6% Non-Black Males Expulsion 38.5% All other areas show an increase in actions. The elementary level shows a decrease in actions in the following areas: Black Males Black Females Home Suspensions 8.9% Home Suspensions 11.5% E.I.C. 23.6% Non-Black Males Non-Black Females Home Suspensions 11.8% Home Suspensions 76.9% E.I.C. 200% All other areas show an increase in actions. J I The middle school level shows a decrease in action in the following area: Black Males Expulsion 50% All other areas show an increase in actions. The high school level shows a decrease in actions in the following areas: Black Males Non-Black Males SAC Expulsion 50.2% 27.3% SAC 5.1% All other areas show an increase in actions. The ten year comparison shows an increase in home suspensions during the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school year when the off campus suspension class was not available. However, this program was reinstated at the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year. A major effort by the total District has been made to keep our students in school. This is reflected in the total number of expulsions at the District level. This analysis also reflects a decrease in the number of actions for Black males. The staff is commended for the various programs provided to increase student achievement. Research shows high achievement - lower discipline. March 22, 2007 llJ ] I J IJ I J IJ I J I J I l I J I I J I I I I I J I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Discipline Actions Schoo1Year2005-2006 District Level Elementary Middle Schools High Schools 9 Year Comparison Ref: DIS032 Date: 6/12/06 rime : 18 : o 5 : 5 3 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through MAY 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ======================--====--=-------------------------------=-----===-------~= 09 S.A.C. 1560 52.3% 860 28.8% 390 13.1% 172 5.8% 2982 626 421 211 117 1375 10 HOME SUSP. 753 61.2% 325 26.4% 110 8.9% 43 3.5% 1231 438 200 72 30 740 11 BOYS CLUB 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 0 5l-  0 0 O!l-  0 4 3 1 0 0 4 12 E. I.C. ll0 72. 4% 30 19.7% 11 7.2% 1 7 5l-  0 152 70 17 9 1 97 17 EXPULSION ll 52.4% 0 O!l-  0 9 42.9% 1 4.8% 21 11 0 9 1 21 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1843 50.3% 1189 32.5% 471 12.9% 158 4.3% 3661 722 515 257 107 1601 10 HOME SUSP. ll66 58.5% 565 28.3% 208 10.4% 54 2.7% 1993 566 288 134 37 1025 11 BOYS CLUB 40 58.0% 15 21.7% 9 13. 0% 5 7.2% 69 20 8 5 3 36 12 E.I.C. 84 60.9% 38 27.5% 13 9. 4 % 3 2.2% 138 60 26 11 3 100 17 EXPULSION 4 30.8% 2 15.4% 5 38.5% 2 15.4% 13 4 2 5 2 13 ----=========------------======================================================= COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---==============--------------=-==============-=--------=======-=============== 09 S.A.C. 283 18.1 % 329 38.3 % 81 20.8 % 14- 8.1-% 679 96 94 46 10- 226 10 HOME SUSP. 413 54.8 % 240 73.8 % 98 89.1 0 'o 11 25.6 % 762 . 128 88 62 7 285 ll BOYS CLUB 37 1233.3 % 14 1400.0 % 9 900.0 % 5 500.0 % 65 17 7 5 3 32 12 E. I.C. 26- 23.6-% 8 26.7 % 2 18.2 % 2 200.0 % 14- 10- 9 2 2 3 17 EXPULSION 7- 63.6-% 2 200.0 % 4- 44.4-% 1 100.0 % 8- 7- 2 4- 1 8- Ref: DIS032 Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:53 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION _Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-5 From AUGUST Through MAY 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 !l.  0 0 224 69.3% 129 0 O!l.  0 0 110 72.4% 70 0 O!l.  0 0 -----BF-----# REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 52 16.1% 34 0 O!l.  0 0 30 19.7% 17 0 O!l.  0 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O!l.  0 0 34 10.5% 20 0 0 !l.  0 0 11 7.2% 9 0 O!l.  0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 O!l.  0 0 13 4.0% 6 0 O!l.  0 0 1 79.  0 1 0 O!l.  0 0 0 0 323 189 0 0 152 97 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2, 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------==-===-=----------======================================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 O!l.  0 0 O!l.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 204 69.2% 58 19.7% 30 10.2% 3 1.0% 295 143 43 22 3 211 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 O!l.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 84 60.9% 38 27.5% 13 9.4% 3 2.2% 138 60 26 11 3 100 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!l.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=============================================================================== COMPARISON ---============----------======================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT( /-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----============-------------------============================================= 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 20- 8.9-% 6 11. 5 % 4- 11. 8-% 10- 76.9-% 28- 14 9 2 3- 22 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 g. 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 26- 23.6-% 8 26.7 % 2 18.2 % 2 200.0 % 14- 10- 9 2 2 3 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 J ] ] J ] Ref:. DIS032 Date: 6/12/06 Time : 18 : 0 5 : 5 3 Art~lysis of Disciplinary A~tions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through MAY 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 839 52.0% 434 26. 9% 254 15.8% 85 5.3% 1612 328 224 131 54 737 10 HOME SUSP. 199 53.4% llO 29.5% 52 13. 9% 12 3.2% 373 122 74 29 8 233 11 BOYS CLUB 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 .0% 0 09-  0 4 3 1 0 0 4 12 E. I.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 5 55.6% 0 0 9-  0 4 44.4% 0 0 9-  0 9 5 0 4 0 9 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BE'------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1138 50.4% 747 33.1% 286 12.7% 87 3.9% 2258 414 298 14 3 55 910 10 HOME SUSP. 568 55.0% 315 30.5% ll9 11. 5% 31 3.0% 1033 221 134 70 22 447 ll BOYS CLUB 40 58.0% 15 21.7% 9 13. 0% 5 7.2% 69 20 8 5 3 36 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 50.0% 0 09-  0 0 .0% 1 50.0% 2 1 0 0 1 2 =------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BE'------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------=---------------------------------------------------------============= 09 S.A.C. 299 35.6 % 313 72 .1 % 32 12.6 % 2 2.4 % 646 86 74 12 1 173 10 HOME SUSP. 369 185.4 % 205 186.4 % 67 128.8 % 19 158.3 % 660 99 60 41 14 214 ll BOYS CLUB 37 1233.3 9- 0 14 1400.0 % 9 900.0 % 5 500.0 % 65 17 7 5 3 32 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 9- 0 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 4- 80.0-% 0 . 0 % 4- 100.0-% 1 100.0 0 'o 7- 4- 0 4- 1 7- Ref: DIS032 Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:53 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through MAY 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 721 52.6% 426 31.1% 136 9.9% 87 6.4% 1370 298 197 80 63 638 10 HOME SUSP. 327 61. 5% 163 30.6% 24 4.5% 18 3.4% 532 185 92 23 16 316 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 6 50.0% 0 Og_  0 5 41. 7% 1 8.3% 12 6 0 5 1 12 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION 705 50.2% 442 31. 5% 185 13. 2% 71 5.1% 308 217 114 52 394 59.2% 192 28.9% 59 8.9% 20 3.0% 202 111 42 12 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 3 27.3% 2 18.2% 5 45.5% 1 9.1% 3 2 5 1 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 1403 691 665 367 0 0 0 0 11 11 ------------------------ ------------------------------------ ------------------ 09 S.A.C. 16- 2.2-% 16 3.8 % 49 36.0 % 16- 18.4-% 33 10 20 34 11- 53 10 HOME SUSP. 67 20.5 % 29 17. 8 % 35 145.8 % 2 11.1 % 133 17 19 19 4- 51 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 3- 50.0-% 2 200.0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1- 3- 2 0 0 1- ] Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time : 18 : 0 5 : 5 3 School: 012 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 142 42.5% 101 30.2% 67 20.1% 24 7.2% 334 88 69 41 17 215 10 HOME SUSP. 59 60.8% 21 21.6% 6 6.2% 11 11. 3% 97 52 18 6 10 86 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 1 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 !l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 1 100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 234 49.2% 118 24.8% 91 19.1% 33 6.9% 476 126 81 59 23 289 10 HOME SUSP. 67 60.4% 26 23. 4 % 15 13.5% 3 2.7% 111 53 25 14 3 95 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 25.0% 2 50.0% 1 25.0% 0 O!l-  0 4 1 2 1 0 4 =---------------------------------=======-==============================--=====- COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------== 09 S.A.C. 92 64.8 % 17 16.8 % 24 35.8 % 9 37.5 % 142 38 12 18 6 74 10 HOME SUSP. 8 13.6 % 5 23.8 % 9 150.0 % 8- 72. 7-% 14 1 7 8 7- 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 . 0 g. 0 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0 % 2 200.0 % 1 100.0 % 1- 100.0-% 3 1 2 1 1- 3 l l I I I I I l I I ' I I I J I J I J I J Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 6/12/06 18:05:53 School: 013 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 57 9 55.9% 324 31. 3% 69 6.7% 63 6.1% 1035 210 127 39 46 422 10 HOME SUSP. 167 56.2% 106 35.7% 17 5.7% 7 2.4% 297 94 57 16 6 173 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 5 051-  0 0 051-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 6 54.5% 0 0 51-  0 5 45.5% 0 Og_  0 11 6 0 5 0 11 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -----=====----------------=-============----==================================== 09 S.A.C. 470 50.8% 324 35.0% 93 10.1% 38 4. 1% 925 182 136 54 29 401 10 HOME SUSP. 184 53.8% 119 34.8% 33 9.6% 6 1.8% 342 97 67 25 6 195 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 28.6% 0 .0% 4 57.1% 1 14.3% 7 2 0 4 1 7 ----=====-=--------------======================================================= COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --=================---------------=========-===-==-----========================= 09 S.A.C. 109- 18.8-% 0 . 0 % 24 34.8 % 25- 39.7-% 110- 28- 9 15 17- 21- 10 HOME SUSP. 17 10.2 % 13 12.3 % 16 94.1 % 1- 14.3-% 45 3 10 9 0 22 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 4- 66.7-% 0 . 0 % 1- 20.0-% 1 100.0 % 4- 4- 0 1- 1 4- Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:53 School: 020 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY ARGENTA ACADEMY 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 102 71. 3% 40 28.0% 1 7!,,  0 0 O!l,  0 143 46 23 1 0 70 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l,  0 0 02-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1 50.0% 0 02-  0 1 50.0% 0 0 2-  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 10 HOME SUSP. 14 3 67.8% 48 22.7% 11 5.2% 9 4.3% 211 64 24 4 2 94 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 2-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 2-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----------------------------------======-================-=-----------------=== COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------======-=------------------------------------------------------=========-- 09 S.A.C. 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 2 1 0 1 0 2 10 HOME SUSP. 41 40.2 % 8 20.0 % 10 1000.0 2- 0 9 900.0 % 68 18 1 3 2 24 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 0 'o 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 T irne : 18 : 0 5 : 5 3 School: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY RIDGEROAD MIDDLE CHARTER SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 337 54.5% 193 31. 2% 67 10.8% 21 3.4% 618 124 86 32 15 257 10 HOME SUSP. 52 57.8% 27 30.0% 10 11. 1% 1 1.1% 90 37 15 6 1 59 11 BOYS CLUB 0 05).  0 0 05).  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 05).  0 0 0 5).  0 1 05).  0 0 0 5).  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 5 83.3% 0 05).  0 1 16.7% 0 0 5).  0 6 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 457 46.5% 414 42.2% 81 8.2% 30 3.1% 982 150 150 38 18 356 10 HOME SUSP. 242 53.2% 158 34. 7% 45 9.9% 10 2.2% 455 89 66 24 7 186 11 BOYS CLUB 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 1 1 0 0 2 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 05).  0 0 05).  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 05).  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 =------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON =---------------------------------===============================-=----========- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 120 35.6 % 221 114. 5 % 14 20.9 % 9 42.9 0 15 364 26 64 6 3 99 10 HOME SUSP. 190 365.4 % 131 485.2 % 35 350.0 % 9 900.0 % 365 52 51 18 6 127 11 BOYS CLUB 1 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 2 1 1 0 0 2 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 5). 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 4- 80.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 5- 4- 0 1- 0 5- Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time : 18 : 0 5 : 5 3 School: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU =======================================--------==-----=-----=------------------- 09 S.A.C. 127 39.4% 61 18.9% 103 32.0% 31 9.6% 322 57 35 59 25 176 10 HOME SUSP. 29 35.8% 19 23.5% 31 38.3% 2 2.5% 81 21 14 15 2 52 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 3 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 3 100.0% 0 09-  0 3 0 0 3 0 3 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 146 42.3% 66 19.1% 109 31.6% 24 7.0% 345 69 31 63 18 181 10 HOME SUSP. 68 47.6% 17 11. 9% 48 33.6% 10 7.0% 143 30 11 32 10 83 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 09-  0 1 100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 1 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ======================------------------------------------------------------==== 09 S.A.C. 19 15.0 % 5 8.2 % 6 5.8 % 7- 22.6-% 23 12 4- 4 7- 5 10 HOME SUSP. 39 134. 5 % 2- 10.5-% 17 54.8 % 8 400.0 % 62 9 3- 17 8 31 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 3- 100.0-% 1 100.0 % 2- 0 0 3- 1 2- Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:53 School: 026 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 105 59.7% 35 19.9% 26 14.8% 10 5.7% 176 44 22 10 4 80 10 HOME SUSP. 42 50.6% 35 42.2% 4 4.8% 2 2. 4% 83 25 26 4 2 57 11 BOYS CLUB 3 100.0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 3 3 0 0 0 3 12 E. I.C. 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 225 60.5% 97 26.1% 37 9.9% 13 3.5% 372 68 42 11 6 127 10 HOME SUSP. 14 9 60.8% 71 29.0% 17 6.9% 8 3.3% 245 53 32 8 4 97 11 BOYS CLUB 39 58.2% 14 20.9% 9 13. 4% 5 7.5% 67 19 7 5 3 34 12 E. I.C 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -========================----=--==============-------------------==-=========== 09 S.A.C. 120 114. 3 % 62 177.1 % 11 42.3 % 3 30.0 % 196 24 20 1 2 47 10 HOME SUSP. 107 254.8 % 36 102.9 % 13 325.0 % 6 300.0 % 162 28 6 4 2 40 11 BOYS CLUB 36 1200.0 % 14 1400.0 % 9 900.0 % 5 500.0 % 64 16 7 5 3 31 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S 6/12/06 18:05:54 030 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 270 54.3% 113 76 65.0% 40 0 Og_  0 0 0 Og_  0 0 0 09-  0 0 -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 146 29. 4 % 84 27 23.1% 18 1 100.0% 1 0 .0% 0 0 Og_  0 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 58 11. 7% 31 7 6.0% 4 0 Og_  0 0 0 Og_  0 0 0 Og_  0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 23 4.6% 12 7 6.0% 3 0 Og_  0 0 0 Og_  0 0 0 Og_  0 0 4 97 240 117 65 1 1 0 0 0 0 ---------=---------------------=---==-----------================================ 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 310 55.5% 170 30.4% 59 10.6% 20 3.6% 559 136 79 32 13 260 10 HOME SUSP. 109 57.1% 68 35.6% 9 4.7% 5 2.6% 191 52 28 7 2 89 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 0 g_ . 0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---==========--------------=================================-----------========= COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 40 14.8 % 24 16.4 % 1 1. 7 % 3- 13.0-% 62 23 5- 1 1 20 10 HOME SUSP. 33 43.4 % 41 151. 9 % 2 28.6 % 2- 28.6-% 74 12 10 3 1- 24 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- 0 1- 0 0 1- 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time : 18 : 0 5 : 5 4 School: 031 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU =============-==---------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 19 67.9% 1 3.6% 3 10.7% 5 17.9% 28 7 1 2 2 12 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 . 0 9- 0 0 9- 0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -==============-----------=-===========----------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 77.8% 1 11.1% 1 11.1% 0 0 9-  0 9 4 1 1 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 1 100.0% 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 12- 63.2-% 0 . 0 % 2- 66.7-% 5- 100.0-% 19- 3- 0 1- 2- 6- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 J I J ] Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:54 School: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4 57.1% 1 14.3% 2 28.6% 0 0 9-  0 7 3 1 2 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9,.  0 0 0 9,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 0 9,.  0 0 0 9,.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 9,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5 62.5% 2 25.0% 1 12.5% 0 .0% 8 5 2 1 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9,.  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09,.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 25.0 % 1 100.0 9- 0 1- 50.0-% 0 . 0 % 1 2 1 1- 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 . 0 % 0 . 0 0 15 0 . 0 0 15 0 .0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] ] ] I J J J j Ref: DIS032S 6/12/06 18:05:54 033 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O!l-  0 0 7 87.5% 5 0 O!l-  0 0 30 76.9% 17 0 0 !l-  0 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 O!l-  0 0 1 12.5% 1 0 O!l-  0 0 9 23.1% 2 0 O!l-  0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O!l-  0 0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 .0% 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 0 !l-  0 0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 !l-  0 0 0 O!l-  0 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 8 6 0 0 39 19 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 11 78.6% 3 21. 4 % 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 14 8 3 0 0 11 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 33 68.8% 13 27.1% 2 4.2% 0 O!l-  0 48 17 10 2 0 29 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------========-=-----------------------------------------------------========== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4 57 .1 % 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 6 3 2 0 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 3 .0 % 4 . 0 % 2 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 9 0 0 2 0 10 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I J I I I I I J I I I I I J I J I I I J I J I J Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 T irne : 18 : 0 5 : 5 4 School: 035 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 67 84.8% 12 15.2% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 79 42 10 0 0 52 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 54 80.6% 13 19.4% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 67 34 9 0 0 43 17 EXPULSION 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 40 75.5% 11 20.8% 2 3.8% 0 Og.  0 53 29 9 1 0 39 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og. . 0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 27- 40.3-% 1- 8.3-% 2 200.0 % 0 .0 % 26- 13- 1- 1 0 13- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 54- .0 % 13- .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 67- 1- 1- 0 0 43- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:54 School: 037 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4 40.0% 6 60.0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 g_  0 10 4 4 0 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 10 71. 4% 3 21. 4 % 0 7.1% 0 0 9-  0 14 7 2 1 0 10 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 21 91. 3% 1 4.3% 1 4.3% 0 0 9-  0 23 15 1 1 0 17 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 5 83.3% 1 16.7% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 6 4 1 0 0 5 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --------=-===-==-----------------------=------------------------------========== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 17 425.0 % 5- 83.3-% 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 13 11 3- 1 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 5- . 0 % 2- . 0 % 1- . 0 % 0 .0 % 8- 1- 1- 1- 0 5- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:54 School: 040 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 55 64.7% 23 27.1% 2 2.4% 5 5.9% 85 23 11 2 1 37 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 34 66.7% 16 31. 4 % 1 2.0% 0 .0% 51 19 12 1 0 32 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og_  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 21- 38.2-% 7- 30.4-% 1- 50.0-% 5- 100.0-% 34- 4- 1 1- 1- 5- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,J Ref: DIS032S 6/12/06 18:05:54 041 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og.  0 0 2 20.0% 2 0 Og.  0 0 4 30.8% 4 0 Og.  0 0 -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 Og. . 0 0 3 23 .1% 3 0 Og.  0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 8 80.0% 3 0 Og.  0 0 0 38.5% 3 0 Og.  0 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 09-  0 0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 7.7% 1 0 Og.  0 0 -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 10 5 0 0 13 11 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 10 76.9% 1 7.7% 2 15.4% 0 0 g.  0 13 7 1 2 0 10 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 6 50.0% 2 16.7% 3 25.0% 1 8.3% 12 5 2 3 1 11 17 EXPULSION 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---===================--------------=====-~=~=---------------=================== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8 400.0 % 1 100.0 % 6- 75.0-% 0 .0 % 3 5 1 1- 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 2 . 0 % 1- .0 % 2- . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1 0 2- 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time : 18 : 0 5 : 5 4 School: 042 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 19 61. 3% 1 3.2% 11 35.5% 0 .0% 31 15 1 7 0 23 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6 35.3% 7 41. 2% 2 11. 8% 2 11. 8% 17 5 3 2 2 12 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 1 100.0% 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 0 '\u0026lt;5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 13- 68.4-% 6 600.0 % 9- 81.8-% 2 200.0 % 14- 10- 2 5- 2 11- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 g. 0 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I IJ I I II I ] I I I J I I I I I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:54 School: 04 3 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og.  0 0 20 62.5% 11 0 Og.  0 0 0 Og.  0 0 0 Og.  0 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og.  0 0 4 12.5% 3 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 Og.  0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og.  0 0 6 18.8% 3 0 Og.  0 0 0 100.0% 1 0 0 g.  0 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NSF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og.  0 0 2 6.3% 2 0 0 g.  0 0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 g.  0 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 32 19 0 0 1 1 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15 60.0% 1 4.0% 9 36.0% 0 0 g.  0 25 10 1 6 0 17 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 1 16.7% 1 16. 7% 4 66.7% 0 Og.  0 6 1 1 3 0 5 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- ff REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU n STU # STU n STU ------===========-----------------------------------------------------------===- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5- 25.0-% 3- 75.0-% 3 50.0 % 2- 100.0-% 7- 1- 2- 3 2- 2- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 . 0 % 1 .0 % 3 . 0 % 0 .0 % 5 1 1 3 0 4 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 J I J J I I I I I I I I J I I I J I J I J I l Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12 /06 Time: 18:05:54 School: 044 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT /TO.T # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8 100.0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 8 7 0 0 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 3 75.0% 0 .0% 0 25.0% 0 Og_  0 4 1 0 1 0 2 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------=========------------===========================-- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 23 63.9% 11 30.6% 2 5.6% 0 Og_  0 36 16 6 1 0 23 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 33 55.9% 21 35.6% 3 5.1% 2 3. 4 % 59 27 12 2 2 43 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 . 0% 0 0 g_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==-----------------------------------------------------------------------------= COMPARISON ==----============-----=-======================================================- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ===---==============--------------=============-=-=-=--------===============---- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15 187.5 % 11 1100.0 % 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 28 9 6 1 0 16 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 30 .0 g, 0 21 .0 % 2 . 0 % 2 . 0 % 55 10 21 2 2 41 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I - [_ I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:54 School: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 100.0% 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 7 5 0 0 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9 100.0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 9 8 0 0 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 28.6 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 2 3 0 0 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 l I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I l Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/12/06 Time: 18:05:54 School: 04 6 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 87.5% 1 12.5% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 8 5 1 0 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBE\"'----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REE\"' PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15 62. 5% 4 16.7% 5 20.8% 0 Og_  0 24 13 4 4 0 21 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBE\"'----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REE\"' PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8 114. 3 % 3 300.0 % 5 500.0 % 0 .0 % 16 8 3 4 0 15 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I 1  1 I I 1 I l I l Ref: DIS032S Date : 6 / 12 / 0 6 Time: 18:05:54 School: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 70.0% 0 Og_  0 2 20.0% 1 10.0% 10 4 0 1 1 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 9 64.3% 2 14.3% 0 21. 4% 0 Og_  0 14 7 1 3 0 11 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8 61.5% 0 .0% 4 30.8% 1 7.7% 13 6 0 2 1 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 0 9.-  0 0 .0% 0 09.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 3 75.0% 0 .0% 1 25.0% 0 .0% 4 3 0 1 0 4 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_ . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 14.3 % 0 .0 % 2 100.0 % 0 .o % 3 2 0 1 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 6- .0 % 2- . 0 % 2- . 0 % 0 . 0 % 10- 1- 1- 2- 0 7- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM D \"04-05 1560  05.09 1843 Action 09: SAC BF NBM 860 390 1189 471 NSF 172 158  '04-05  '05-06 1200 1000 800 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 10: Home Suspension 600 D 04-05  os-o\u0026amp; 400 200 BM BF NBM NBF D 04-05 753 325 111 43  '05-08 1188 585 208 54 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 D 04-05  \"05-06 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF 3 1 0 0 40 15 9 5  04-05  '05-06 120 100 80 40 I_] 20 I I 0 D 04-05 I  '05-08 I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 BM BF NBM NBF 110 30 11 1 14 38 13 3 12 10 8 6 4 1 2 I I 0 D 04-05 1  '05-08 I 1 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 11 0 9 1 4 2 5 2  04-05  '05-06 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 09: SAC 1 _/ 0.9 _/ o.a--- 0.7-\" 0.6 _/ 0.5-v 0  4-v 0  3-V 0.2 _/ 0.1 _/ 0 BM BF NBM NBF D 04-05 0 0 0 0  '05-08 0 0 0 0 D 04-05  '05-08 J J IJ J IJ IJ 250 200 150 100 50 0 D 04-05 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF 224 52 34 13  '05-06 204 58 30 3  04-05  '05-06 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 11: Boys Club 1 _/ 0.9-  o.a-  0.7-  0  6 V 0.5_v 0.4-v 0.3-v 0.2-v 0.1 _v 0 BM BF NBM NBF D 04-05 0 0 0 0  os-o\u0026amp; 0 0 0 0  04-05  '05-06 ] J I l J J J i 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 D 04-05 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 BM BF NBM NBF 110 30 11 1  \"05-08 84 38 13 3  04-05  '05-06 .. North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 17: Expulsion 1_/ 0.9-\" 0.8- 0.7_v 0  6-V 0.5-L-' 0  4-v 0.3.v 0  2-v 0.1 _v 0 BM BF NBM NBF D 04-05 0 0 0 0  os-o\u0026amp; 0 0 0 0  04-05  '05-06 ] I J I J J I J I l 1 i 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 004-05 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 09: SAC BM BF NBM NBF 839 434 254 85  '05-08 1138 747 288 87 D 04-05  '05-06 ] I J ] J J J ] 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 D 04-05  '05-08 I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF 199 110 53 12 581 315 119 31  04-05  05.0\u0026amp; ] 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0  04-05 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF 3 1 0 0  '05-08 40 15 9 5  04-05  '05-06 I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 1_/ 0.9-v 0  8 _v 0.7y 0.6-v 0  5Y 0.4-L-' 0.3_v 0.2_v 0.1 _v 0 BM BF NBM NBF D 04-05 0 0 0 0  \"05-06 0 0 0 0  04-05  '05-06 I J I J I J I J I J IJ IJ IJ IJ I I I I I I I I I 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0  04-05  '05-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 5 0 4 0 1 0 0 1  04-05  05.oe 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 D 04-05  os-06 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 09: SAC BM BF NBM NBF 721 426 136 87 705 442 185 71  04-05  05.0\u0026amp; 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 D 04-05  '05-08 ~ I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF 327 183 24 18 394 192 59 20  04-05  05.0\u0026amp; I I I_ I I I I I ,I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 11: Boys Club 1 _,, 0.9_v 0.8-\" 0.7_v 0  6-V 0.5_v 0.4-v 0.3.v 0  2-v 0.1-\"' 0 BM BF NBM NBF 0 04-05 0 0 0 0  \"05-08 0 0 0 0  04-05  '05-06 IJ IJ 1:] IJ I I I I II I I I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 1 - 0.9-  o.a ,, 0.7-  0.6-V 0.5_v 0.4-v 0.3_v 0.2- 0.1 _,, 0 BM BF NBM NBF D 04-05 0 0 0 0  '05-08 0 0 0 0  04-05  '05-06 6 5 4 3 I 2 I 1 I I 0 D 04-05 I  '05-08 I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 8 0 5 1 3 2 5 1   04-05  os-o\u0026amp; I I I I I I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 09: SAC 2000-r------------~ 1800-,......._,r----------~ 1800__......,......__, ________ ~ 1400 1200 1000 800 800 400 200 0 BM BF NBM  98-97 1284 55 489  97-98 1801 882 547  98-99 1443 718 458  99-00 1488 882 401 D 00-01 1092 558 287  01-02 1278 574 354 D 02-03 1903 1050 512  03-04 1981 980 394 D '04-05 1580 880 390  '05-08 1843 1189 471 NBF 142 132 138 139 89 107 172 220 172 158  98-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01  01-02 D 02-03  03-04 D \"04-05  \"05-08 I I North Little Rock Public Schools II Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison I Action 10: Home Suspension I I 1200 I 1000 I 800 I 800 I  98-97 400  97-91  98-99 I 200  99-00  00-01 I 0  01-02 BM BF NBM NBF D 02-03 I  98-97 591 208 125 17  03-04  97-98 511 125 104 13  '04-05 I  91-99 588 141 125 22  '05-08  99-00 408 113 102 18 I  00-01 315 92 84 7  01-02 892 234 92 21 I 002-03 522 193 83 13  03-04 489 157 88 18  '04-05 753 325 111 43 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 11: Boys Club 600--------------, 500--------------- 400...Jl-tl------------ 300 200 100 0 BM BF NBM NBF  96-97 357 146 85 20  97-98 515 148 112 8  98-99 359 148 88 22  99-00 351 129 90 27 D 00-01 325 136 56 12  01-02 210 83 52 11 002-03 244 86 83 25  03-04 316 155 51 16  04.05 3 1 0 0  os-o\u0026amp; 40 15 9 5 1196-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01  01-02 D 02-03  03-04  04.05 o o5-o6 I I I I I I I I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 350 300- 250 200- \u0026gt;- 150- 100- 0- 0- I ~Jj .. _A. BM BF NBM NBF  98-97 154 30 32 3  97-98 0 0 0 0  98-99 211 108 27 8  99-00 248 83 75 18  00-01 182 55 40 21  01-02 342 184 87 29 002-03 252 97 52 11  03-04 195 70 18 11  '04-05 110 30 11 1  '05-08 84 38 13 3  98-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01  01-02 D 02-03  03-04  '04-05  '05-08 IJ ~] I I I I I I I I I I I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 17: Expulsion 12- 10- 8- 8- 4- - 2-a I ~ - - 0- J I II BM BF NBM NBF  98-97 3 7 0 0  97-98 8 5 0 0  98-99 7 2 1 1  99-00 3 0 2 0 D 00-01 3 0 5 3  01-02 1 0 2 1 D 02-03 2 0 2 0  03-04 2 0 2 0  '04-05 11 0 9 1 In n ,. .. 4 ~ a\n: ~ 98-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02 D 02-03  03-04  '04-05 D '05-08\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_463","title":"Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District, 2005 Aggregate Report, 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"],"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 Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District, 2005 Aggregate Report, 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/463"],"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\nRECEIVED JAN 5 2006 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Research in EducalionaJ Pcticy Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District Ceruer for Researdi in Educational Policy The UniversSy of Memphis 325 Browning Ha# f.temohcs Tennessee 38152 To(Free1-866^7(M147 2005 Aggregate Report DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District CREP Center for Research in Educational Policy Center for Rcsea'di in Edixatkinal Potcy The University' of Fvlempliis 325 Browning Mali Memohis Tennessee 38152 Tea Free 1-8I56-67M147 Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District 2005 Aggregate Report DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District December 2005 Anna W. Grehan Steven M. Ross Lynn Harrison Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery Old Dominion UniversityEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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 seventeen 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 1remediating 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? 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?  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? 2 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 The evaluation period extended from February 2004 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, and 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 white, 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, Stephens, and 3Terry) 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. A detailed description of each instrument follows. Classroom Observation Measures Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument (RRIAI) The RRIAI was designed for observation in Reading Recovery classrooms and was developed by researchers at CREP and Reading Recovery faculty at ULAR. Ratings are organized around two categories: Reading Recovery Program Components and Reading Recovery Program Strategies. The RRIAI 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 RRIAI 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. 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 4the principals general experiences and reactions to the Reading Recovery implementation and the associated outcomes for the school, students, teachers, and parents. 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 teacher's in-training experiences with and perceptions of the Reading Recovery program implementation with regard to such areas as resources, professional development, parent involvement, support, and student outcomes. Surveys Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) 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 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 4 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 grade students progress after they were discontinued from tutoring. Open-ended questions asked Reading Recovery teachers to respond to the statements: What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? What are the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? Do 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. 5Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) All K-3 teacher 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 program? Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? A final section of the RRCTQ contained general questions regarding years of teaching experience, race, and level of 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 6 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, child's enjoyment of tutoring sessions, and opportunities to communicate with the Reading Recovery teacher. Open-ended questions asked parents to respond to the statements: Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery tutoring program at your child's 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. 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 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 6site 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 with the site. Student Achievement Results In addition to the program data, interviews, survey, and observation tools cited above, reading achievement data is 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. 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 used in K-3 classrooms with rich literate 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: accuracy 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. 7Dynamic 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 reliabilities and validities. The purpose of the assessment is to determine 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 serve as pretest measure 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. 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 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 8survey to experienced teachers at a regularly scheduled monthly meeting at ULAR. 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 ten 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 was received in summer 2005 from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University. Student achievement data was 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%). 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. 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 = 968.50\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). 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 program\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. Measures. Pretest (covariate) measures included: (a) Spring. 2004 Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) subtests in Letter Recognition, Word Recognition, Capitatization, Writing, Dictation, and a DRA Test score, (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: Reading Recovery, and DIBELS subtests. A single factor accounted for 60.1 %. 60.5%. and 43.8% of the variance in the DRA. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, and DIBELS subtests, respectively. Outcome measures included the DRA. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, and DIBELS subtests, as well as ITBS. The DRA Letter Recognition, DRA Capitalization, and DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency subtests were not administered in Spring 2005. DIBELS and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery tests were administered to a small random sample of comparison students within each school. Student achievement analyses. A 3 (Program Status) X 2 (African American versus other) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) using student gender, the pertinent pretest factor score, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status was performed with the various subtests as outcomes for the DRA. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, and DIBELS test 10batteries. A similar 3X2 analysis of covariance was performed on ITBS Reading NCE scores using the 2003-2004 DRA factor 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. For ITBS Reading NCE effect size estimates, the population standard deviation of 21.06 was used. 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 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). Finally, effect size boxplots were constructed for African American students who had Complete and Incomplete Reading Recovery programs. 11RESULTS 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. More precise data regarding observed Reading Recovery instructional practices measured by the four-point rubric for the 14 observations. Reading Recovery Program Components The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Components was 3.46 which suggest a high level of program implementation. Of the six subcategories the highest observed ratings were\nassembling a cut-up story and introducing and reading a new book observed to be above average in 85.71 % 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 35.71% of tutoring sessions. The six program components were observed in at least 92.86% of 14 tutoring sessions. Reading Recovery Program Strategies The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Strategies was 3.61 which also indicate 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 above average in 85.71% 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 42.86% of tutoring sessions. For the After Tutoring Lesson, has high expectations for the child and articulates childs strengths and needs were observed to be above average in 78.57% of tutoring sessions and accurate and up-to-date records were observed to be above average in 71.43% of 12tutoring sessions. The Reading Recovery Program Strategies were observed in at least 85.71 of tutoring sessions. Observer Perceptions of Reading Recovery Program Impiementation 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 teachers expertise and knowledge gained from their training and practice benefits children across several grade levels. During visits site observers did suggest areas in which some Reading Recovery teachers need improvement. These instructional areas include: (1) hearing and recording sounds in words\n(2) making and breaking\n(3) do away with the helping hand\nand (4) maintaining up-to-date records on each child as a basis for instruction. 13INTERVIEW RESULTS Reading Recovery Principal Interview Principals at ten 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. 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 compliment to the school's 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. 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 agree 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, 14and the early intervention provided by Reading Recovery allov/s the student 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-raining 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 school's 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 the 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 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. 15Reading 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 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 our 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 86.36% of the teachers reporting that the school administration and Reading Coach supported their efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher. Almost 75% (72.73%) 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 (36.36%) and enough tutors to fully implement the Reading Recovery program (18.18%). Demographic data. All Reading Recovery teachers (100%) reported having at least six years of teaching experience and 31.82% reported at least six years experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. Approximately 85% (86.36%) of Reading Recovery teachers reported having a Masters Degree and beyond. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers were white (72.73%) and 13.64% reported their ethnicity as African-American. 16Open-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 their school. There were twenty-two Reading Recovery teachers who filled out the questionnaire, and twenty-one of those also answered the open-ended questions. 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 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?-, and 20 teachers elaborated on their positive response listing reasons for continuing Reading Recovery. The ability of Reading Recovery to help 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. Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) Descriptive results. For the classroom teachers, the three items on which there was 80% or higher agreement included: teacher support of the program (93.59%), positive impact on student achievement (87.82%), and improving achievement of African-American students (82.05%). The two 17items on which classroom teachers expressed the strongest disagreement or disagreement included\nsufficient faculty and staff to fully implement the program (23.08%) and because of Reading Recovery, parents are more involved in the literacy program (14.74%). Demographic data. K-3 classroom teachers reported less teaching experience and education attainment than Reading Recovery teachers. Close to 30% (28.85%) reported less than one year to five years teaching experience in any school and 57.69% reported having a Bachelors degree. However, more classroom teachers reported their ethnicity as African-American (28.85%) than Reading Recovery teachers with the majority (68.59%) reporting ethnicity as white. Open-ended responses. In addition to the 13 items the teachers were asked to rate on the questionnaire, several open-ended questions were also asked of the classroom teachers. Teachers were asked to describe their understanding of the Reading Recovery program, relate the strongest aspects of the program, and discuss whether or not Reading Recovery should be continued at their school. There were 151 teachers who described their understanding of the Reading Recovery program. Classroom teachers at Reading Recovery schools have a very good understanding of the program, which corresponds with the almost 80% (78.2%) who agreed with the item on the questionnaire concerning their understanding of the program. Nearly all of the respondents were able to articulate the main elements of Reading Recovery. A total of 136 teachers responded to the question regarding the strongest aspect of the Reading Recovery program. Many of the teachers listed more than one component as being a strong aspect of Reading Recovery. One-on-one or individualized instruction was listed in 56.6% of the responses as being the strongest aspect of the program. Working with students in small groups was mentioned in 24.2% of the responses and the ability of Reading Recovery to help those students who are most in need was listed in 14.7% of the responses. For the open-ended responses, over half (53.4%) listed the fact that Reading Recovery helps students achieve as a significant reason for keeping the program, and 22.4% stated Reading Recovery should be continued because it helps those in greatest need. Nearly twenty percent (19.8%) listed individualized instruction. Although all of the respondents to the question replied that 18Reading Recovery should continue at their schools, six percent (6.0%) stated the need for more Reading Recovery teachers at the school, and 6.0% felt greater implementation was needed. Reading Recovery Parent Survey (RRPS) Descriptive results. Generally, parents had favorable attitudes toward the Reading Recovery program. A majority of the parents (90.53%) reported that, because of Reading Recovery tutoring, they believed that their child would be successful in school and 86.32% reported that Reading Recovery had improved their child's reading skills. However, less than 75% (66.32%) 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% (68.42%) of parents reported the ethnicity of their child as African-American and 13.68% reported their childs ethnicity as Hispanic and 7.37% reported the ethnicity of their child as Caucasian. Open-ended responses. In addition to the six scaled items parents of Reading Recovery students were asked to answer, parents were also asked three open-ended questions regarding the program. There were 80 parents who responded to the first open-ended question, which asked them to describe their understanding of the Reading Recovery tutoring program at their childs school. Overall, parents seemed to have a very good understanding of the Reading Recovery program, and many listed several components that are instrumental in Reading Recovery. Over 80% (83.8%) responded that Reading Recovery helps children read better and improve their reading skills, and 21.3% listed the one-on-one help and individualized attention that the program provides. Children bringing books home and reading at home was mentioned in 13.8% of the responses and improvement in writing skills was listed in 8.8% of the responses. Only 2.5% of those who responded indicated that they did not know or understand Reading Recovery. 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 75.2% of the total student population, African American students were also a majority of the Reading Recovery students in the schools. In 11 of the 18 schools, the percentage of African American students in Reading Recovery exceeded their percentage of the school wide population. 19How meaningful this difference is may be debatable given instances where 100% of the Reading Recovery students are African American in a school which is 99% African American (Rightsell Incentive 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 significantly 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%). Reading Recovery Year End Reading Group by Race With-in school comparisons are again difficult due to the unequal number of African American students compared to others student participating in the program. On an overall basis however, the percentage of African American students placed in the high/upper-middle group at 25.7% was significantly lower than the percent of other students placed in this group (38.2%). In addition. almost three quarters of the African American students were placed in the low/lower-middle group compared to less than two thirds of other students. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS DRA 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 factor scores. Wilks lambda indicated significant multivariate effects for Reading Recovery status (Fejaso = 6.83, p \u0026lt; .001), special education status (F^^so = 3.93, p \u0026lt;.01), and 2003-2004 DRA factor scores (= 111 -32, p \u0026lt;.001). Follow-up univariate tests indicated 20significant Reading Recovery status effects on Dictation (F2,693 = 6.34, p \u0026lt;.01) and Test scores (^2,693 = 9.99, p \u0026lt; .001). Post hoc analyses revealed that: (a) Reading Recovery students in both the Incomplete Program {M = 36.32\nES =+0.43) and the Complete Program (W = 35.96\nS =+0.37) had a significantly higher adjusted mean Dictation score than students in the comparison condition (M = 33.82)\nand (b) students in the comparison condition (M = 17.64) and the Complete program {M= 16.42\nS = -0.18) had a higher mean Test score than students receiving the Incomplete Program (W = 13.02\nES = -0.68). No program X race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. DIBELS Subtests. 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 (Eg,212 = 4.12, p \u0026lt; .001), special education status ( E4JO6 = 3.50, p \u0026lt;.01), and 2003-2004 DRA factor scores ( F4JO6 = 3.69, p \u0026lt;.01). Follow-up univariate tests indicated significant Reading Recovery status effects on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (F2,io9 = 3.39, p \u0026lt;.O5) and Oral Reading Fluency (F2.109 = 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 {Ivf = 40.35) and the Complete program (1^= 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 (M = 40.35) than students receiving the Complete program (M = 33.45\nES =-0.33). No program X race interaction effect occurred, indicating that African American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. Observation Survey: Reading Recovery Subtests. A total of 161 Reading Recovery students (75%%) and 90 comparison students (47%) had matching 2004-2005 Reading Recovery subtest scores, demographic information, and 2003-2004 Reading Recovery factor scores. Wilks lambda indicated significant multivariate effects for Reading Recovery status (Fio,474 = 4.85, p \u0026lt; .001), 21special education status (Fs ^s? = 3.09, p \u0026lt;.01), 2003-2004 Reading Recovery factor scores (Fs^s? = 22.02, p \u0026lt;.001), and gender {F5,237 = 4.92, p \u0026lt;.01). No program X race interaction effect occurred. indicating that African American and other students were equally affected by participation in Reading Recovery. Follow-up univariate tests indicated significant Reading Recovery status effects on Concepts About Print (F2,241 = 11.87, p \u0026lt;.001), Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words {F2,24-1 = 3.19, p \u0026lt; .05), and Text Reading Levei (F2,24i = 5.38, p \u0026lt; .01). Post hoc analyses revealed that: (a) Reading Recovery students in the Complete Program {M = 20.00\nES = +0.83 ) had a significantly higher adjusted mean Concepts About Print score than student in the comparison condition {M = 17.08) or the Incomplete Program {M = 18.52\nES = +0.41)\n(b) students in the Complete program (M = 34.79\nES = +0.36) had a higher mean Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words score than students in the comparison condition (M = 32.77)\nand (c) students in the comparison condition {M = 13.67) and the Complete program (M= 13.73) had a higher mean Text Reading score than students receiving the Incomplete Program (M = 10.28\nES = -0.53). 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 (F2,69i = 6.62, p \u0026lt;.001), free lunch status (Fi gg, = 7.83, p \u0026lt;.01), and 2003-2004 DRA factor scores (Fi.esi = 195.81, p \u0026lt;.001). No program X 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 (W = 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 negative effects on ITBS. 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 residuals or DRA standardized residuals for students 22receiving 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. CONCLUSIONS Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?  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 Dictation {ES = +0.37), Phoneme Segmentation {ES = +0.58), Concepts About Print (ES = +0.83), and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (ES = +0.36)  Students receiving an incomplete program had significantly higher adjusted means than comparison students on Dictation (ES = +0.43) and 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), Oral Reading Fluency (ES = -0.91), and Text Reading (ES = -0.53). 23No 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 +0.17\nfor students receiving an incomplete program, the median effect size estimate was -0.22. Positive effects of Reading Recovery tended to be associated with lower-order or beginning reading skills like dictation, phoneme segmentation, and concepts about print while negative effects tended to be associated with more complex, higher-order skills like Oral Reading Fluency and Text Reading. 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 RRIAI, 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 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 24begin 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. The analysis of student achievement data supports this observation that there is consistency in program delivery. 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. This suggests that generally teachers have a high degree of fidelity to the model. 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%, 25was 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%). African American students were, however, more likely to be placed in the Low/Lower Middle reading group by their classroom teachers 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, their classroom teachers appear to consider that, 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. These missed sessions could contribute to the mean number of sessions per week being just 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, and district support. The items and areas of the most concern was 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 were concerned that only 63.64% of faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade thanks to the Reading Recovery, and that parents are more involved in the literacy program of this school. 26Reading 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 27students 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\nReading Recovery tutoring has improved my 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. In summary, the Little Rock School District has a strong Reading Recovery program. 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. These factors 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 particular, Reading Recovery enhanced learning for complete program students tests involving Dictation, Phoneme Segmentation, Concepts About Print, and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words. However, it had no effects on tests assessing Oral Reading Fluency and ITBS Reading NCE scores.  The district should examine the feasibility of providing 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 28approximately half of this number were discontinued and received a complete round of lessons. 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 teachers to continue to scaffold discontinued students learning while supporting a large number of other at-risk students reading below grade level. This may explain why so many Reading Recovery students are placed in the low/lower middle reading groups by their classroom teachers.  The data suggest that after Reading Recovery students are discontinued and return to the classroom at the same reading level as their peers, it appears that they do not maintain the same growth rate and achievement does not keep pace with their peers. Although research indicates that former Reading Recovery students perfomi 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. 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.  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. Additional research could provide critical insight into the optimum classroom environment for discontinued, recommended, and incomplete Reading Recovery students. 29EVALUATION 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 seventeen 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-tenn 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 30essential 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% 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 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 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. 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 (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 31interview 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? 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?  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? 32EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES The evaluation period extended from February 2004 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, and 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 white, 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, 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 Reading Recovery program ranged 33from 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 Bale Elementary School Booker Aris Magn^ES Carver Magnet Elem School Chicot Eiem^ool David O'Dodd Elem School Franklin Incentive Elem School C^er Springs ElemSctwol Gibbs Magnet Elem School tvie^cwcliff Elem School Mitohell Incentive Elem School Otter Creek Elem School Rights^ Incentive Bern School Stephens Elem School terry Elem School Wakefield Elem School Watson Elem School VWIiams Magnet Elem School Wilson Elem School School Wide Population Students Teacheis Asian 319 605 496 536 261 387 299 310 349 156 511 262 499 577 451 456 461 285 27 55 43 44 27 35 23 30 24 22 31 25 39 36 29 34 36 27 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 7% 0% 0% 9% 1% School Wide Student Population African American 87% 55% 54% 75% 58% 97% 89% 52% 77% 96% 56% 99% 95% 51% 83% 95% 52% 89% Hispanic White 7% 5% 4% 3% 15% 10% 0% 4% 3% 9% 0% 6% 0% 3% 5% 15% 3% 1% 4% 40% 40% 10% 32% 2% 7% 41% 13% 2% 36% 1% 2% 36% 2% 2% 38% 6% % Free and Reduced Lunch 88.4% 63.3% 53.0% 85.6% 68.9% 943% 80.6% 43.9% 85.1% 91.7% 55.7% 87.8% 90.6% 47.5% 920% 932% 33.6% 91.9% Reading Recowiy Participant tifonnation % Below Pralicienr Number of RR Teachers Number of K-3 Number of RR Years in RR Teachets Students Program 45% 22% 18% 38% 30% 51% 48% 11% 44% 59% 19% 49% 59% 12% 33% 64% 10% 35% 10 20 32 16 17 12 14 18 18 13 15 13 16 26 10 18 14 18 10 13 10 1 8 1 4 7 2 3 3 5 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 8 9 7 8 8 7 8 6 9 8 3 5 8 2 8 8 8 9 9 8 8 3 1 1 3 3 9 5  Proficiency levels are based on 2003-2004 school year ACTAAP Grade 4 Reading, Language, and Writing data. 34Instrumentation 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 (RRIAI) The RRIAI was designed for observation in Reading Recovery classrooms and was developed by researchers at CREP and Reading Recovery faculty at ULAR. Ratings are organized around two categories: Reading Recovery Program Components and Reading Recovery Program Strategies. The RRIAI 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 RRIAI 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 35the 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 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 Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) 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 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 4 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 grade students progress after they were discontinued from tutoring. Open-ended questions asked Reading Recovery teachers to respond to the statements: What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? What are the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? Do 36you 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 teacher 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 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 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 6 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 child's 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. 37Program 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 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 with the site. Student Achievement Results In addition to the program data, interviews, survey, and observation tools cited above, reading achievement data is 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. 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 used in K-3 classrooms with rich literate environments. The assessments are conducted during one- 38on-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: accuracy 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 reliabilities and validities. The purpose of the assessment is to determine 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 serve as pretest measure 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. 39PROCEDURE 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 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 ULAR. 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 ten 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 was received in summer 2005 from the National Data Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University. Student achievement data was 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\nsee Figure 1). 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%\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. 40Figure 1. Percentage of Students with Selected Demographic Characteristics by Reading Recovery Status 100.0 -I 90.0 - 84.3 -i 80.0 - 73.6 75.6 \" 73.1 70.0 - 60.0 - 40.0 - 48.0 58.1 50.0 -  30.0 - 20.0  10.0 - 7.3 15.7 8.6 0.0 African American Free lunch LEP Special Education Male J j  Comparison  Reading Recovery 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). 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 41program\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 c o w 00- V) V) a 2 cr O  40- o o 20- O O o * DisiJuntinueiJ HovhU I I )nl nown Pricominrjndrid a\u0026lt;\ntion T T T T lni\nuin|:'He 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. 42Measures. Pretest (covariate) measures included: (a) Spring, 2004 Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) subtests in Letter Recognition, Word Recognition, Capitalization, Writing, Dictation, and a DRA Test score, (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\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 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: Reading Recovery, DIBELS subtests. A single factor accounted for 60.1%, 60.5%, and 43.8% of the variance in the DRA, Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, and DIBELS subtests, respectively. Outcome measures included the DRA, Observation Survey: Reading Recovery, and DIBELS subtests, as well as ITBS. The DRA Letter Recognition, DRA Capitalization, and DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency subtests were not administered in Spring 2005. DIBELS and Observation Survey: Reading Recovery tests were administered to a small random sample of comparison students within each school. Student achievement analyses. A 3 (Program Status) X 2 (African American versus other) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) using student gender, the pertinent pretest factor score, free lunch status, special education status, and LEP status was performed with the various subtests as outcomes for the DRA, Observation Survey: Reading Recovey, and DIBELS test batteries. A similar 3X2 analysis of covariance was performed on ITBS Reading NCE scores using the 2003-2004 DRA factor score as a pretest covariate. For the multivariate analyses, Wilk's 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 43adjusted mean from the Reading Recovery group within levels of race, then dividing by the total standard deviation of the posttest. For ITBS Reading NCE effect size estimates, the population standard deviation of 21.06 was used. 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 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). Finally, effect size boxplots were constructed for African American students who had Complete and Incomplete Reading Recovery programs. DATA COLLECTION Table 2 provides the type of measures, instrument names, administration timeline, and a brief data collection description for each of the instruments. 44Table 2 Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Site Visits Instrument Timeline RR Implementation Assessment Instrument Spring 2005 Description/ Response rate  14 conducted Surveys RR Teacher Questionnaire RR Classroom Teacher Questionnaire RR Parent Survey Spring 2005 Spring 2005 Spring 2005  22 respondents/100%  156 respondents/  approximately 90% Interviews Principal Interviews Teacher In-Training Interviews Spring 2005 Spring 2005  95 respondents/9 Spanish  approximately 86%  10 conducted  4 conducted Data Analysis and Reporting ITBS, DRA, DIBELS, \u0026amp; Observation Survey: RR Fall 2005 Little Rock School District Reading Recovery Aggregate Report  1,094 first grade students . 230 RR  864 comparison group  1 Final Report RESULTS The results of the Pleading Recovery evaluation are presented below by instrument. In the Conclusion section, findings are synthesized across instruments to address each research question. 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. More precise data regarding observed Reading Recovery instructional practices measured by the four-point rubric for the 14 observations are presented in Table 3. 45Reading Recovery Program Components The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Components was 3.46 which suggest a high level of program implementation. Of the six subcategories the highest observed ratings were\nassembling a cut-up story and introducing and reading a new book observed to be above average in 85.71 % 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 35.71% of tutoring sessions. Reading a familiar story and reading a story that was read for the first time the day before was observed to above average in 64.29% of visits. The six program components were observed in at least 92.86% of 14 tutoring sessions. Reading Recovery Program Strategies The overall mean rating for the Reading Recovery Program Strategies was 3.61 which also indicate 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 above average in 85.71% 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 42.86% 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 78.57% of tutoring sessions and accurate and up-to-date records were observed to be above average in 71.43% of tutoring sessions. The Reading Recovery Program Strategies were observed in at least 85.71 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 46for 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 teachers' expertise and knowledge gained from their training and practice benefits children across several grade levels. During visits site observers did suggest areas in which some Reading Recovery teachers need improvement. These instructional areas include: (1) hearing and recording sounds in words\n(2) making and breaking\n(3) do 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. 47Table 3 Reading Recovery Implementation Assessment Instrument: Spring 2005 N=14 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: I. II. Quality 1 = Poor or unacceptable 2 = Below average in comparison to other programs observed 3 = Meets nearly all standards of program quality 4 = Above average in comparison to other programs Observed Not Obsented Reading Recovery Program Components Poor 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 ronning record Working with letters and /or words using magnetic letters 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 Below Average 14.29 7.14 42.86 0.0 0.0 0.0 Quality Meets 21.43 28.57 14.29 21.43 7.14 7.14 Above Average 64.29 64.29 35.71 71.43 85.71 85.71 Overall rating: Folkws the Reading Recovery lesson frameworks Mean:3.46 SD:0.54 Observed Not Observed Reading Recovery Program Strategies Poor 92.86 7.14 Appropriate pacing of lesson components 0.0 Below Average 21.43 Quaflty Meets 7.14 Above Average 64.29 92.86 7.14 100.0 0.0 Appropriate text selected throughout the lesson Appropriate prompts are used for scaffolding the child to problem s\u0026lt;3lve 0.0 0.0 7.14 7.14 0.0 85.71 14.29 78.57 100.0 0.0 Child is engaged in constructive problem solving 7.14 0.0 21.43 71.43 92.86 7.14 Echo of focus throughout the lesson 0.0 7.14 42.86 42.86 92.86 7.14 Procedures ate adjusted according to child's needs 0.0 0.0 14.29 78.57 92.86 7.14 Balance of fluency phrasing practice and problem solving 0.0 7.14 7.14 78.57 85.71 7.14 Opportunities to develop phonological awareness within the lesson 0.0 7.14 21.43 64.29 85.71 7.14 Accurate up-tobate records 0.0 7.14 14.29 71.43 85.71 7.14 Articulates child's strengths and needs 0.0 0.0 14.29 78.57 85.71 7.14 Has high expectations for the child 0.0 0.0 14.29 78.57 Overall Rating: 'NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from observers. Mean: 3.61 SD:0.66 48INTERVIEW RESULTS Reading Recovery Principal Interview Principals at ten 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 compliment 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. 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 agree 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. 49and the early intervention provided by Reading Recovery allows the student 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-raining 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 the 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. 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. Teachers in training emphasized the importance of the daily data reports they collect and view them as essential to the success of the program. Reading Recovery teachers collect and use 50data 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 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 closing 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. 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. 51SURVEY 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 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 our 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 86.36% of the teachers reporting that the school administration and Reading Coach supported their efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher. Almost 75% (72.73%) 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 (36.36%), enough tutors to fully implement the Reading Recovery program (18.18%), and time to routinely monitor first grade students' progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery (9.09% not at all and 72.73% somewhat). Demographic data. All Reading Recovery teachers (100%) reported having at least six years of teaching experience and 31.82% reported at least six years experience as a Reading Recovery teacher. Approximately 85% (86.36%) of Reading Recovery teachers reported having a Masters Degree and beyond. The majority of Reading Recovery teachers were white (72.73%) and 13.64% 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 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, listing multiple 52responses 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 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?\"-, and 20 teachers elaborated on their positive response listing reasons for continuing Reading Recovery. The ability of Reading Recovery to help 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. 53Table 4 Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ): 2004-2005 N = 22 RRTQ Items 1. 2. 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 schoofs Reading Recovery program. I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/lraining for implementation of the Reading Recovery program. Our Reading Recovery program has positively impacted student achievement Because of 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 lime to implement the program. Our school has enough tutors to fully implement its Reading Recovery program. The administration protects the time for daily unintenupled 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 all 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 dasstoom reading teachers. Reading Recovery teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constnrctive 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 together 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 ate readily available. The faculty, staff, and administration believe that aH children can read at grade lev^ or above by the end of third grade. The Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. Percent Strongly Agree And Agree 100.00 95.45 95.45 95.45 86.36 54.55 59.09 77.27 63.64 86.36 100.00 100.00 81.82 77.27 86.36 81.82 100.00 100.00 63.64 100.00 1. 2. 3. 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? Towhat degree (toes the district support your efforts asaReading Recovery teacher? To what degree did your schedule allow the time to routinely monitor first grade students' progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery tutoring? Percent Extensively 86.36 86.36 72.73 18.18 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 Percent Somewhat 13.64 4.55 27.27 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 NOTE: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents. 54Table 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 0.00 36.36 31.82 18.18 9.09 22 0.00 0.00 18.18 13.64 68.18 22 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 Bachelors degree Masters degree Masters plus 20 hrs Education Specialists 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 0.00 68.18 31.82 0.00 0.00 22 13.64 36.36 40.91 9.09 0.00 22 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. 55Table 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. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Teacher Selection____________ __________Responses________________ One-on-one intervention/ Individualized lessons Bridging Achievement Gap by reaching lowest performing students Reading Recovery Teaching Strategies and Components of Instruction Early intervention Support from other RR teachers Continuing contact with students Professional training and development Addresses both reading and writing Increases students' confidence Collaboration with classroom teacher Close contact with parents Frequency Percent 12 10 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 57.1 47.6 19.0 14.3 14.3 9.5 9.5 9.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 Total Responses N = 21 Sample responses  Working one-on-one with an at-risk child.  Reading Recovery is an early intervention. The ability to identify and provide one-to-one instruction for a child is the strongest aspect. The child can be helped before bad habits are in place and self-esteem is an issue. Because it takes place in first grade the children are usually able to get on track with their classmates instead of falling behind more each day. Question Neutral or Neuative Comments What are the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery Program? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Teacher Selection __________Responses____________ Planning time Time for Lesson Cant offer RR to All who need it Too much Paperwork Doesnt work for all children Continuing Contact Need more training and professional development support Need more RR teachers at the school More phonological approach in reading instruction Special Education screening No weak aspects Frequency Percent 7 4 4 2 2 2 33.3 19.0 19.0 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 1.48 1.48 1.48 Total Responses N= 21 2 2 1 1 1 Sample responses  Not any planning time.  Need more ongoing training fro teachers, especially those who may be in their second or third year of Reading Recovery. 56Table 5, continued Open-Ended Responses on the RRTQ Teacher Selection Question Continuation Comments Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery Program? Responses Why? 1. Yes: Why? Helps struggling readers Can see the results in achievement Decreased the number of students in special ed. Increases parental support Boosts self-confidence of student See continued gains as children advance Frequency Percent 19 10 8 3 2 1 1 90.5 2. Yes, but.... Need better implementation 3. Yes, with no elaboration 4. No_____________________ Total Responses N= 21 1 1 4.8 4.8 0 Sample responses  Yes. It has made a major difference in the number of children not on grade level and even the number of children referred for special education testing at my school.  Yes: I believe that Reading Recovery has enabled many children to get a great foundation for reading on grade level or near grade level by the end of 2\"^ or 3\" grade. Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (RRCTQ) Descriptive results. The results of the RRCTQ administered to K-3 teachers in the 15 experienced Reading Recovery schools are summarized in Table 6. For the classroom teachers, the three items on which there was 80% or higher agreement included: teacher support of the program (93.59%), positive impact on student achievement (87.82%), and improving achievement of African- American students (82.05%). The two items on which classroom teachers expressed the strongest disagreement or disagreement included: sufficient faculty and staff to fully implement the program (23.08%) and because of Reading Recovery, parents are more involved in the literacy program (14.74%). Demographic data. K-3 classroom teachers reported less teaching experience and education attainment than Reading Recovery teachers. Close to 30% (28.85%) reported less than one year to five years teaching experience in any school and 57.69% reported having a Bachelors degree. However, more classroom teachers reported their ethnicity as African-American (28.85%) than Reading Recovery teachers with the majority (68.59%) reporting ethnicity as white. 57Open-ended responses. In addition to the 13 items the teachers were asked to rate on the questionnaire, several open-ended questions were also asked of the classroom teachers. Teachers were asked to describe their understanding of the Reading Recovery program, relate the strongest aspects of the program, and discuss whether or not Reading Recovery should be continued at their school. Teachers responses were very informative and many listed multiple responses for each of the questions. A complete summary of responses can be found in Table 7, and a verbatim listing of teacher responses can be found in Appendix F. There were 151 teachers who described their understandin\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_439","title":"Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program, Final Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee"],"dc_date":["2005/2006"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Literacy"],"dcterms_title":["Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program, Final Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/439"],"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\nas CREP Little Rock School District Center far Research in Educational Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 2005 - 2006 RECEIVED Final Report DEC 1 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING CREP Little Rock School District Center for Research in Educational Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 2005 - 2006 December 2006 Anna Grehan Lynn Harrison Deborah Slawson Center for Research in Educational Policy Shana Pribesh John Nunnery Old Dominion UniversityEXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to summarize and present the results of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) Prekindergarten Literacy Program. The primary goal of this evaluation was to determine the impact the Prekindergarten Literacy program had on improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. Additionally, this study was designed to determine program implementation, perceptions of strengths and weaknesses of the program by the relevant stakeholders, effectiveness of the program in screening and monitoring students progress, and the level of participation of African Americans in the preschool program. RESEARCH QUESTIONS This evaluation was structured around the following primary and supplementary research questions: Primary Evaluation Question  Has the prekindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions  What are the quality of instruction and level of implementation of prekindergarten programs in classroom environments at the 28 schools implementing in 2005-2006?  What is the level of participation in the prekindergarten program by African American children relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  To what extent does the prekindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify and monitor the progress of African American children who may be at-risk for academic failure?  What are the perceptions of prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals regarding the prekindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of the principal, kindergarten teachers, and first grade teachers regarding prekindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of prekindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 1EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES Participants. The LRSD identified 28 preschool sites to he included in this study. From those 28 sites, there were 1,316 four-year old children in 69 preschool classrooms. Demographic data indicated 69.0% were African American, 19.0% were Caucasian, and 6% were Hispanic\napproximately two-thirds (66.0%) qualified for free or reduced price lunch. There were 69 prekindergarten teachers and 69 paraprofessionals at the 28 sites, and 214 kindergarten or first grade teachers. Design. A mixed methods design was employed to address all of the research questions. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected either by trained CREP researchers or through the acquisition and analyses of student achievement results provided by LRSD. Instrumentation. Student achievement results for 2005-2006 prekindergarten students were analyzed to determine gains throughout the school year, and achievement results for kindergarten students in 2005-2006 were used with comparisons made between those that attended LRSD prekindergarten programs versus those that had not. In addition, a ten year longitudinal analysis was conducted in which achievement data were compared between cohorts that had attended LRSD prekindergarten classrooms with those that had not. In addition to the student achievement results, two classroom observation tools were utilized, four survey questionnaires were administered, and a phone interview was conducted. Following are descriptions of the instruments and achievement measures used in this study. Early Literacy Observation Tool (E-LOT^). The E-LOT is the preschool version of the Literacy Observation Tool (LOT) both of which were developed by researchers at CREP as an instrument for observing literacy instruction. (Smith, Ross, \u0026amp;Grehan, 2002). The LOT has been aligned to the National Reading Panel and National Research Council findings and captures all five essential components of the Reading First program. The E-LOT has been customized to accurately reflect pre-school activities, especially as they relate to literacy activities. Early Language \u0026amp; Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO). The ELLCO is a toolkit that provides researchers and practitioners with guidelines for describing the degree to which a classroom supports literacy activities. Primarily an environmental checklist, the ELLCO contains three assessment tools: a Literacy Environment Checklist, protocols to conduct classroom observations and administer teacher interviews, and a Literacy Activities Rating Scale. The total time to complete the observation is approximately one to one and one-half hours. The ELLCO is used for research purposes in over 150 preschool classrooms and has a reported statistical reliability of 90% or better. Principal Phone Interview. Ten randomly selected principals from schools with prekindergarten programs participated in a 30-45 minute phone interview with CREP researchers. An interview protocol was developed for this study that included questions regarding the principals perceptions of the prekindergarten program at their school and the impact of the prekindergarten program on student achievement, with special note of the perceived impact on African American achievement. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 2Prekindergarten Teacher Questionnaire (PKTQ). Prekindergarten teachers in all 28 schools with prekindergarten programs were asked to complete the PKTQ. The PKTQ was designed to capture prekindergarten teachers attitudes and perceptions of their schools prekindergarten program and their experiences as a prekindergarten teacher. Prekindergarten Paraprofessional Teacher Questionnaire (PKPTQ). Prekindergarten paraprofessional teachers in all 28 schools with prekindergarten programs were asked to complete the PKPTQ. The PKPTQ was designed to capture paraprofessional teachers attitudes and perceptions of their schools prekindergarten program and their experiences as a paraprofessional teacher. Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (CTQ). Kindergarten and first grade teachers in all schools with prekindergarten programs were asked to complete the CTQ. The CTQ was designed to capture these teachers attitudes and perceptions of their schools prekindergarten program. Parent/Guardian Questionnaire (PQ). All parents/guardians of prekindergarten students were asked to complete the PQ. The PQ was designed to capture attitudes and perceptions of their childs prekindergarten program. Early Screening Inventory (ESI). The Early Screening Inventory is a developmental screening instrument that was revised and standardized in 1997. Published by Pearson Early Learning, ESI allows the childs prekindergarten teacher to quickly screen and assess children in the areas of motor development, language development, and cognition. In this evaluation, the ESI database for 2005-2006 was analyzed. Work Sampling System (WSS). Developed in 1995, WSS is a performance assessment system, rather than a battery of tests, that assesses and documents childrens skills, knowledge, behavior, and accomplishments over a spectrum of educational areas and throughout a variety of occasions. WSS is a method in which teacher observations are organized around a set of criteria and procedures. For the purposes of this study, WSS fall 2005 prekindergarten student results were collected and compared with WSS spring 2006 prekindergarten students results as a measure of student growth throughout the year. 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 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. The measures were developed upon the essential early literacy domains discussed in both the National Reading Panel (2000) and National Research Council (1998) reports to assess student development of phonological awareness, alphabetic understanding, and automaticity and fluency with the code. Not all students in the LRSD were assessed with DIBELS. Primarily DIBELS was administered to those kindergarten students in Reading First schools or those students who did not do well on portions of the Qualls Early Learning Inventory. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 3Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI). The QELI is an assessment tool primarily for kindergarten students. The QELI identifies student development as either developed,' developing, or delayed in six areas. Arkansas requires all incoming kindergarten students to be tested with the QELI. For the purposes of this study, fall 2005 QELI results for all incoming kindergarteners were collected for comparisons between those who had prekindergarten the prior year and those who had not. Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). The ITBS is a norm-referenced group administered test that measures the skills and achievement of students in grades K-8. Developed at the University of Iowa, the ITBS provides an in-depth assessment of students achievement of important educational objectives. PROCEDURES Data for the evaluation were collected April-May 2006 for the 2005-2006 school year. During the week of April 17*, 12 randomly selected preschool sites were visited and observed using the E-LOT and the ELLCO. All observations were conducted by trained CREP researchers. Principals dispersed questiormaires to all teachers in April, and prekindergarten teachers were responsible for disseminating the parent questionnaires. Principal phone interviews were conducted during May. Student achievement data were provided electronically by LRSD throughout the summer and fall of 2006. RESULTS Qualitative: Questionnaires, Interviews, Observations, and Screening Questionnaires. Questionnaires distributed to prekindergarten teachers, paraprofessional teachers, kindergarten and first grade teachers, and parents/guardians of preschool students were instrumental in gathering perceptions of the preschool program.  Prekindergarten Teacher Questionnaire: Teachers were overwhelmingly positive about the prekindergarten program and believed it was having a positive impact on all students and was bridging the achievement gap for Afiican American students. They reported having a strong understanding of the program in general, and the literacy components in particular. Prekindergarten teachers indicated a great deal of support from the principal and the other faculty. The most negative responses were in the areas of parental support and time for teacher collaboration.  Prekindergarten Paraprofessional Questionnaire: Paraprofessionals were also very positive about the preschool program and believed their work as paraprofessionals to be very important. Paraprofessionals felt supported by the teacher, the principal and other faculty and staff. They also indicated the primary strength of the prekindergarten program in improving student achievement and preparing students for kindergarten. Like the prekindergarten teachers, the most negative responses were for questions related to parental support and teacher collaboration.  Classroom Teacher Questionnaire: Kindergarten and first grade teachers were also positive regarding the preschool programs at their schools and most agreed it helped 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 4 prepare the children for kindergarten. Teachers expressed the need for more information about the preschool program and the curriculum.  Parent/guardian Questionnaire: Parents or guardians of all preschool students were asked for their opinion regarding the program and a large majority responded positively. Parents/guardians indicated the prekindergarten program was highly engaging for their children, was preparing them well for kindergarten, and through the literacy program, their child was becoming reading ready. Interviews. Principals responses during phone interviews indicated a high level of support and enthusiasm for the prekindergarten programs. Principals were eager to affirm the positive impacts of the prekindergarten program, the ease with which it complemented broader school initiatives, and the overall positive support the program received from all staff. Principals all strongly agreed that the prekindergarten program was having a positive impact on African American achievement in particular and overall student achievement as well. Observations. Observations with the ELLCO and the E-LOT indicated overall positive preschool classroom environments with knowledgeable teachers and actively engaged students. Although the ELLCO checklists reflected ample literacy curriculum and materials, class libraries, and other varieties of print and writing materi^s throughout the classrooms, observations with the E-LOT suggested literacy activities were not the predominant focus of many prekindergarten classrooms. Instruction that incorporated phonological awareness, emergent writing, oral language and comprehension activities were not fully developed. Screening. Initial results from the ESI data suggested that although African American students scored lower on the ESI than other races, the differences were not statistically significant. Averages were adjusted to accoimt for the influence of gender, socio-economic status, and English language limitations, and no statistically significant differences were found. Quantitative: Student Achievement The impact on student achievement was analyzed at three levels: prekindegarten achievement gains, kindergarten achievement gains, and longitudinal gains realized over students ten year school career. Analysis A: Prekindergarten Achievement Results. Student results based on WSS were positive and suggested the prekindergarten program improved or remediated the academic achievement of African American students. African American students consistently performed higher on the WSS assessments at Time 3 than at Time 1 in all seven domains: Personal and Social Development, Language and literacy. Mathematical Thinking, Scientific Thinking, Social Studies, The Arts and Physical Development and Health. Analysis B: Kindergarten Achievement Results. Students who attended a LRSD preschool program had higher achievement levels on incoming assessments than those who did not attend LRSD preschool program. Achievement results at the end of the kindergarten year were also higher for those who attended LRSD preschool programs than those who had not. In addition, African American students who attended a preschool program in the LRSD consistently out scored African Americans who did not attend preschool on both fall kindergarten assessments and spring kindergarten assessments a 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 5 Analysis C: f through Grade Achievement Results. Results from the longitudinal analysis suggested that African American students who participated in a prekindergarten program were statistically significantly less likely to need special education services as they continued their school careers and were more likely to remain on grade level than those African Americans who did not attend a preschool program. Results from this analysis also indicated that there were long term impacts for students who had attended a prekindergarten program in the district, even ten years after participation. For African American students this, impact was dramatic and more pronounced than for the population in general. FINDINGS 1. Has the prekindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? In order to gain a full understanding of the impact of the prekindergarten program on African American student achievement, analyses of both cmrent and former prekindergarten students were conducted. Immediate impacts were gauged according to achievement results during the prekindergarten year and achievement results as students entered kindergarten. Long term impacts of the prekindergarten program were assessed through analyzing student achievement data over a ten year period. Findings from this three-tiered approach are described below, but all suggested the prekindergarten program had immediate and long-range impacts on all students, with long term effects especially dramatic for the African American population. Analysis A: Prekindergarten Achievement For the first analysis, test scores on the Work Sampling System by Pearson were examined for 2005-2006 prekindergarten students. Initial fall 2005 scores were compared with spring 2006 student scores. The database from Pearson had 1,300 student scores and comparisons were made between fall 2005 scores and spring 2006 scores. Results from the WSS data suggested that the prekindergarten program was effective in improving or remediating the academic achievement of AIncan American students. African American students consistently performed higher on the WSS assessments at Time 3 than at Time 1 in all seven domains: Personal and Social Development, Language and literacy. Mathematical Thinking, Scientific Thinking, Social Studies, The Arts and Physical Development and Health. Most students reached proficiency (the child can reliably demonstrate the skills, knowledge, behaviors or accomplishments) by Time 3 on all 55 indicators. The pre/post test design employed to assess prekindergarten effectiveness was not rigorous and was open to multiple threats to internal and external validity. Although all students who participated in the state-funded preschool program in Little Rock, Arkansas in 2005-2006 were assessed in this study and most displayed evidence of skill growth, it can not be stated definitively that other factors, such as enrichment programs or parental intervention, did not contribute to the gains. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 6Analysis B: Kindergarten Achievement The evidence from this analysis suggested the preschool program had an overall positive impact on kindergarten student achievement and was effectively improving or remediating the academic achievement of African American students. Relative to students who had not attended a LRSD prekindergarten program, kindergarten students who had attended a Little Rock preschool consistently performed higher on QELI, DIBELS and ITBS subtests. Likewise, African American students who were enrolled in the Little Rock preschool program, consistently performed higher on QELI, DIBELS and ITBS subtests than those who did not attend a preschool program. The design employed to assess effectiveness of the prekindergarten program was rigorous, yet prone to threats of internal and external validity. Students were not randomly assigned to treatment (prekindergarten program) and control (no prekindergarten program), thus, the sample is influenced by selection biases with parents of children who volxmtarily selected to participate in prekindergarten programs more likely to be different than those who chose not to participate. Likewise, this study does not capture information regarding other types of preschool services kindergarten students may have received. The students that were not enrolled in a LRSD prekindergarten program may have been enrolled in private preschool programs or involved in high-quality child care that proximated preschool. Therefore, these students may have received an alternate, yet similar, treatment to that being examined in this study. The sample was representative of Little Rock kindergarten students and appropriate for this evaluation. However, attempts to generalize the findings from this study to other school districts must be carefully consideration based on the above mentioned limitations. Notwithstanding, there does appear to be strong evidence supporting the relationship between Little Rock preschool attendance and positive academic performance. The results were positive across all three achievement tests and 15 subtests. The effect sizes were small to moderate, but all were statistically significant. Therefore, there is strong indication that preschool attendance positively impacted kindergarten academic performance. Analysis C: L* through 10*^ Grade Student Achievement For the longitudinal component of the study, ITBS data for the past ten years were analyzed to evaluate potential long-term benefits of LRSDs prekindergarten program. Scores of students who had previously attended a LRSD prekindergarten program were compared with scores of students who had not. The results of this analysis were very positive. Students who had participated in a LRSD prekindergarten program were more likely to remain on grade level throughout their school career and were less likely to received special educational services than those students who had not. For African American students, those that attended a prekindergarten program had significantly higher ITBS scores than all other cohorts. This longitudinal analysis answered these specific items:  What is the relationship between African American students participation in the prekindergarten program and subsequent receipt of special education services? Afncan American students who participated in a prekindergarten program were statistically significantly less likely to need special education services later in their school careers. In fact, African American students who did not attend prekindergarten were almost 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 7twice as likely to need special education services. Overall, 8.9% of African American PK students received special education services in 2006, versus 14.8% of African American comparison students.  Are African American students who participated in prekindergarten more likely to remain on grade level throughout their school career? For nine out of ten cohorts examined, African American students who attended prekindergarten were more likely to remain on grade level than those who did not. Across cohorts, 87% of African American prekindergarten students were enrolled in the appropriate grade for their age versus 79% of African American comparison students.  Is there a relationship between prekindergarten participation and subsequent performance on the ITBS, and does this relationship differ for African American students versus other students? Prekindergarten participation had a statistically significant, positive effect on the performance of all students, even ten years after program participation. However, participation had a much more pronounced positive effect on the achievement of African American students, with typical effect size estimates of about +0.20 across cohorts and subtests. 2. What are the quality of instruction and level of implementation of prekindergarten programs in classroom environments at the 28 schools implementing in 2005-2005? The prekindergarten program appears to be well implemented with positive classroom environments. An overwhelming majority of prekindergarten teachers, both African American and non-African American, indicated a thorough understanding of the program, valuable training and support from the district and the principal, and an adequate supply of materials for program implementation. Prekindergarten teachers agreed children were excited about learning and most indicated the environment was preparing students for kindergarten. Paraprofessional teachers were also positive regarding the program and responded favorably regarding student enthusiasm, teacher and principal support, materials that supported the program, and the degree to which the program was preparing children for kindergarten. Kindergarten and P grade teachers at the 28 sites were generally positive as well, with an overwhelming majority expressing confidence that the prekindergarten program prepared the children for kindergarten and helped insure that they were reading ready. Through phone interviews, principals reflected positively about the prekindergarten program and deemed it an integral part of their elementary schools. Observations indicated well-implemented programs and positive classroom environments. Site researchers found most of the classrooms were well-equipped with print-rich environments\nhowever opportunities to capitalize on the literacy curriculum, books and themed materials were often missed or not fully explored. In addition, although most teachers were effective classroom managers, observations did not reflect a variety of instructional techniques to address all necessary components of literacy instruction. Learning centers were a predominant orientation of instruction, yet they were often not used to complement literacy instruction. 3. What is the level of participation in prekindergarten by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 200S -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 8African American students represented the majority of the preschool population during the 2005-2006 school year. According to demographic information provided by the Little Rock School District, in the 69 preschool classrooms that were part of this study, the African American population was 69.0%. The Caucasian population represented 19%, 6.0% were Hispanic, and 6.0% described their ethnicity as other. 4. To what extent does the prekindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify and monitor the progress of African American children who may be at-risk for academic failure? Analysis of ESI data indicated that preschool teachers had screened all eligible students. The majority of those screened were African American, which is not surprising given the majority of students in the LRSD are African American. Although African American students scored slightly lower on the ESI, the results were not significant from those of other ethnicities. Over 80% of all preschool teachers, African American and others, agreed that the Prekindergarten Literacy program was useful as a screening tool for assessing at-risk African American students. For paraprofessionals, 72.7% of the non-African American paraprofessionals agreed that the prekindergarten program was useful in monitoring progress of African American students\nfor African Americans this percentage fell to 63.4%. All principals agreed that their well-experienced prekindergarten teachers were able to distinguish problems that needed to be addressed and that through screening and appropriate follow-up checks, there were adequate opportunities for early identification of those at-risk of failing to make academic progress. 5. What are the perceptions of prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessional teachers regarding prekindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessional teachers were very positive regarding the prekindergarten program. For both teachers and paraprofessionals and across ethnic groups, the majority of items on the questionnaires were answered positively by over 80% of the respondents. Most teachers and paraprofessionals understood their programs, felt supported in their work, and agreed that students were being positively impacted, both academically and socially. Questions that allowed teachers and paraprofessionals to respond in their own words were helpful in understanding the perceptions of strengths and weaknesses of the prekindergarten program. For African American teachers and paraprofessionals, the most popular strength listed was the socialization and peer interaction that children experienced in the classroom. While a popular response for non-African American teachers and paraprofessionals, their most popular response was the literacy component. Responses on the questionnaire indicated that the biggest area of concern for prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals was the lack of parental involvement. When 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 9 asked to list the least effective components of the prekindergarten program, the most common answer across all ethnic groups was none or n/a, indicating a high level of overall satisfaction. All responding prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals agreed that the prekindergarten program should be maintained. The most frequent reason given for keeping the program was the preparation it provided for kindergarten. 6. What are the perceptions of principal, kindergarten, and first grade classroom teachers regarding the prekindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All principals who were interviewed were very positive about the preschool program, and most felt it had a significant impact on the long-term achievement of their students. Principals were very complimentary about the prekindergarten teachers and indicated great confidence in their abilities. The literacy aspect of the prekindergarten program was also well thought of by principals, and most understood it to provide the basic foundations of future reading success. Principals reported that the prekindergarten program was well-integrated into the school and enjoyed school-wide support from the rest of the faculty. Principals indicated that the achievement gap historically experienced by African American students was being closed through the prekindergarten program. Concerns articulated by principals included transportation issues and the desire to reach more of the four-year old population. Kindergarten and first grade teachers were also very positive about the prekindergarten program. The majority of both African American and non-African American teachers felt that students were positively impacted because of the program and that the prekindergarten program helped prepare students for kindergarten as well as future reading success. 7. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of prekindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents who responded to the questionnaire were overwhelmingly supportive of the preschool program. This was true for parents/guardians of African American children, as well as for those who represented other ethnic groups. Of the 14 items respondents were asked to evaluate, over 90% of all parents/guardians responded positively to half of them (7). The childrens excitement for preschool, learning, and teachers was evident to those parents and guardians who completed the questionnaires. The majority of all parents/guardians agreed that preschool was preparing their child for kindergarten. In general, for most items, responses between parents of African American students verses those that were not African American were similar and positivewith two exceptions. Those respondents with non-African American children were more likely to respond positively regarding their childs reading readiness due to the prekindergarten program (82.1% agreed) than those who were parents/guardians of African American children (71% in agreement). Also, when asked about the school their child attended, 93% of the parents/guardians of non-African children responded favorably, compared with 84.7% of the African American parent/guardians. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 10The most popular prekindergarten strengths listed by parents/guardians, regardless of the childs ethnicity, were: high quality, caring teachers and the socialization and interaction with peers that occurred in the classrooms. When asked to list changes that should be made to the program, the most popular response for both African American and non-Affican parent/guardians was no change. This is further indication of a high level of support from the parents/guardians of students who participated in the prekindergarten program. RECOMMENDED PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS The Little Rock School District has been recognized as having a strong prekindergarten program. In addition to the positive support expressed by all stakeholders, achievement results reflect a program that is having a positive impact on African American student achievement. Recommendations to further capitalize on the programs success are grouped within the four broad categories listed below: I. Instructional Effectiveness  A renewed focus on literacy instruction would strengthen students pre- reading skills and further prepare preschoolers for kindergarten. Preschools in the district benefit from first-rate materials, curriculum, and knowledgeable support staff\nyet many opportunities to connect literacy instruction with other classroom activities were missed in the classrooms observed. Teachers and paraprofessionals would benefit from coaching and modeling that focuses on preschool literacy instruction, especially concepts of print, fluency activities, oral language, early writing skills, and phonemic awareness, with an emphasis on incorporating these instructional techniques in small group instruction, learning center activities, and other hands-on activities. Mentoring and support from district professionals could aid teachers in providing instructional activities that capitalize on students natural enthusiasm for learning.  It is recommended that the district should investigate the feasibility of investing additional resources in the necessary support staff to strengthen the program.  It is recommended that a district wide program monitoring system to assess fidelity of literacy curriculum implementation and instructional effectiveness be implemented. This could be a valuable source of formative data and an effective feedback mechanism for project implementation. IL Use of student assessment data  It is recommended that a member of the district research and evaluation office be identified as a specialist in preschool assessments. This individual would understand assessment results and help teachers interpret assessment data, guide the district in making data driven decisions, monitor and make recommendations on district performance goals and benchmarks to improve student achievement. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 11 The district should investigate the current mix of assessment tools with an eye toward identifying more user friendly instruments. The district should explore the usage of instruments that provide immediate access to data for analysis and classroom reports for teachers through a web-based interface. III. Expansion of preschool program  Given the demonstrated benefits of preschool to at-risk children, to the school, and to the commimity at large, thefe is clearly a need for more preschool classrooms. The district has made an impressive step in this direction with the dedication of the renovated former elementary school. Fair Park, as a preschool only site. This commitment and concentration of resources should serve as a model for future planning.  Exploring a public transportation system for preschool students would demonstrate a commitment to inclusiveness that would help to reach the children that could benefit most from the preschool program. IV. Parent Involvement  A more concerted, planned effort to communicate with parents and increase their involvement should be undertaken. Because parents must physically bring their children to the classroom and pick them up, preschool teachers have the opportimity to connect with parents on a daily basis. I EXPECTATIONS OF PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS Many of the valuable pieces to an outstanding preschool program are in place in the Little Rock School District. With the incorporation of the recommended program modifications, the district and community could expect:  An increased commitment of teachers to improve their instructional practices and to align the program components with current research.  A coordinated preschool assessment program which would enhance student achievement.  A broadened commitment to inclusiveness that would further enhance and strengthen the program.  Expanded preschool communities committed to reaching and preparing the most at- risk students for kindergarten.  An increased number of students who enter kindergarten with the necessary social skills to thrive in an organized environment.  An increased number of students entering kindergarten who have the skills necessary to learn to read.  A ripple effect with long-term gains on student achievement tests being realized through high school.  Increased parental involvement and better preschool attendance.  More tailored instruction to meet students individual needs. I 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 12 The ability to identify special needs students earlier and provide the help they need.  A decrease in supplemental services needed. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 13Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 2005 - 2006 INTRODUCTION Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) Early Childhood program dates back to 1969 with the opening of the Center for Early Development and Education, directed by Dr. Bettye Caldwell at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Originally housed at the Kramer School, the Center was moved to Rockefeller Elementary, and the school was designed as a center for early childhood and for grades 4 through 6. In 1987, Rockefeller became a K-5 elementary school and was renamed Rockefeller Elementary and Early Childhood Magnet School. Currently, Rockefeller serves children as young as six weeks old through 5* grade. In 1991, LRSD received an Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) grant that provided additional funding for preschool education for children in poverty. The original grant provided funding for 78 children in six classrooms in three elementary schools. Over the past years, the preschool program has expanded into every school except three, with funding from poverty index funds, desegregation funds, and district funds. In spring 2004, additional funding for preschool classrooms came from the state of Arkansas through a grant, Arkansas Better Chance for School Success (ABCSS), a successor to the former ABC grant. Initially 25 of the LRSDs elementary schools were approved for ABCSS funding. These funds required a 40% match from the district. During FY 2004-2005, ABCSS and district funds were used to support the preschool program and to expand the number of classrooms to 65. During 2005-2006, Fair Park Early Childhood Center, a renovated elementary school devoted entirely to preschool education, opened and the total number of four-year old preschool classrooms in the LRSD rose to 69. In addition to the increase in the number of preschool classrooms, there were program changes and additions during the 2005-2006 school year to further increase students readiness for kindergarten. The LRSD implemented a comprehensive curriculum system, the Map for Pre- K Literacy, which provided content guides with strategies and resources, concrete monthly benchmarks, and formative assessments for planning. The structure specifically addressed critical early learning skills such as oral language, listening comprehension, vocabulary, phonological awareness, print awareness, and alphabet knowledge and early mathematics skills. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 14Instructional orientations that included group activities and learning centers with a variety of theme-oriented literature and hands-on activities were promoted. The curriculum also called for formative monthly assessments. In conjunction with the Map for Pre-K Literacy, the Houghton Mifflin PRE-K cuniculum was adopted to provide daily lesson structure that is scientifically-based and would complement and strengthen the curriculum map in addressing the critical areas of early literacy instruction. A complete description of the prekindergarten program was provided by the LRSD Early Education Department and is included in Appendix E. The benefits of a strong preschool program are well-researched and documented. According to most long-term studies, Prekindergarten students have been three times more likely to make better grades and significantly more likely to graduate from high school on time. (Southern Education Foundation, 2006, p.9) Consistently, research indicates that high quality ?9 preschool programs are imperative to childrens academic and cognitive development, especially as such programs address growth in emergent literacy. Emergent literacy refers to a continuous period of young childrens development and includes all of their attempts to interpret or communicate using symbols, regardless of whether the symbols are print, scribbles or pictures (Dixon-Krauss, 1996). Children vary widely in their exposure to print, knowledge of letters, and phonemic awareness, and these differences in emergent literacy skills before kindergarten may continue to impact their success in subsequent years. As children progress through school, initial differences in emergent literacy skills and in reading ability become more pronounced (Butler, Newman \u0026amp; Dickinson, 2006). However, preschool attendance, in and of itself, does not necessarily impact a childs later school successthe quality of the program determines its longterm impacts. Evidence continually shows that for there to be a lasting impact on achievement, programs must focus on oral language, emergent literacy, and social development. (Schweinhart, Barnes, Weikart, Barnett, \u0026amp; Epstein, 1993). Nationwide, Arkansas is ranked highly for its preschool programs. The State of Preschool: 2005 State Preschool Yearbook, the third in a series of works by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), states that Arkansas was the only state of the 38 states with preschool programs to meet all 10 of the NIEER recommended benchmarks. These benchmarks include comprehensive early learning standards, teacher degree and professional development requirements, class size and student teacher ratio, support services, and site visits. Although Arkansas was ranked 18'* among the 38 states with preschools in terms of four-year- 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 15 old preschool accessibility, from sy2001-2002 to sy2004-2005, enrollment of four-year-olds throughout the state has risen over 100% (Barnett, Hustedt, Robin, Schulman, 2006). RESEARCH QUESTIONS The primary focus of this research study was to evaluate the effectiveness in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Additionally, this study addressed other'issues pertinent to understanding the Prekindergarten Literacy program and evaluating its impact on achievement. These other issues included the quality and level of implementation of the prekindergarten literacy programs, the level of participation of African Americans in these prekindergarten programs, the extent to which screening assessments were utilized to determine those at-risk for failure, and the perceptions of prekindergarten teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents/guardians of student attending prekindergarten, as well as kindergarten and first grade teachers and principals in whose schools where the preschool programs were examined. A mixed methods design was employed to address all of the research questions. Student achievement results for 2005-2006 prekindergarten students were analyzed to determine gains throughout the school year, and achievement results for kindergarten students in 2005-2006 were used with comparisons made between those who attended LRSD prekindergarten programs versus those who had not. In addition, a ten year longitudinal analysis was conducted in which achievement data were analyzed between cohorts who had attended LRSD prekindergarten classrooms with those who had not. In addition to the student achievement results, two observation tools were utilized, four survey questionnaires were administered, and a phone interview was conducted. The evaluation of the LRSD Prekindergarten Literacy program was structured around the following research questions: Primary Evaluation Question  Has the prekindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of Afiican American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions  What are the quality of instruction and level of implementation of prekindergarten programs in classroom environments at the 28 schools implementing in 2005-2006? 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 16 What is the level of participation in the prekindergarten program by African American children relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  To what extent does the prekindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify and monitor the progress of African American children who may be at-risk for academic failure?  What are the perceptions of prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals regarding the prekindergarten program implementations, impacts, strengths and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of the principals, kindergarten teachers, and first grade teachers regarding prekindergarten program implementations, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of prekindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 11 EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES The evaluation period extended from April 2006 through May 2006. The evaluation design was based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from observations of prekindergarten classrooms and literacy instruction, phone interviews with principals, parent surveys, prekindergarten teacher and paraprofessional surveys, and questionnaires completed by kindergarten and first grade teachers who taught in schools with prekindergarten classrooms. Student level achievement data included Work Sampling System (WSS) results, Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). The results of the Early Screening Inventory (ESI) were also used to provide insight regarding prekindergarten screening measures. The student level achievement data and screening assessment data were received from the district in the summer and fall of 2006. Site researchers from the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) conducted observations of the prekindergarten classrooms and phone interviews with principals. Principals were responsible for dissemination of teacher questionnaires, and prekindergarten teachers for distribution of the parent/guardian questionnaires. Participants The Little Rock School District is the largest school district in the state of Arkansas and served 26, 524 students during the 2005-2006 school year. Approximately 1,316 four-year-old students, roughly 5% of the total student population, attended preschool classes in one of the 28 designated state-funded prekindergarten sites. Of those 28 sites, 27 were elementary (k-5) schools and one site. Fair Park, was an early childhood center comprised entirely of prekindergarten classes. Almost 70 percent (69.0%) of those attending prekindergarten classes were African American, 19.0% were Caucasian, and 6.0% were Hispanic. Approximately two- thirds of the students (66.0%) qualified for free and reduced price lunch. Table 1 summarizes the total school and preschool populations for 2005-2006. 2005 2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 18Tablet. Total School and Preschool Populations, 2005-2006 School Bale Baseline Brady Carver Chicot Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M.L. King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rockerfeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff Total Students 340 299 378 520 591 309 137 415 446 651 337 451 616 377 453 383 593 334 493 375 576 644 504 641 517 294 288 236 % African American 83.2 72.9 83.3 54.2 71.9 56.0 62.8 21.4 96.2 24.7 88.4 33.3 65.9 78.8 64.0 77.3 65.1 44.9 76.5 81.1 95.7 56.7 75.0 81.6 87.6 76.9 86.1 91.9 % White 4.1 4.7 6.3 36.7 4.6 21.4 29.9 73.5 2.2 66.5 3.0 63.9 25.0 10.6 20.8 9.9 21.4 47.9 17.0 2.4 1.0 25/0 2.6 6.6 1.5 15.3 3.1 5.9 % Hispanic 8.2 19.4 3.4 3.1 21.5 17.8 .7 1.2 .4 2.2 7.4 .4 1.0 7.2 7.5 10.2 7.1 1.8 2.0 11.7 1.6 9.0 21.4 4.5 8.3 6.1 7.3 .8 % other 4.4 3.0 6.9 6.0 2.0 4.9 6.6 3.9 1.1 6.6 1.2 2.4 8.1 3.4 7.7 2.6 6.4 5.4 4.5 4.8 1.7 9.3 1.0 7.3 2.5 1.7 3.5 1.3 % Free \u0026amp; Reduced Lunch 82.9 94.3 86.2 52.9 88.0 70.9 54.0 17.8 96.4 16.9 86.9 28.2 60.2 86.7 67.3 88.0 57.8 44.6 72.4 81.9 91.3 53.4 91.3 80.3 95.2 77.6 90.6 88.1 ^\"Vno.^- Students \" African Piskinderaarten \u0026lt;g American 38 *5 82.0 75.0 70.0 , White . 50 0.0 \" 5.0 s 30.0 Hispanic Other 8.0 18.0 5.0 0.0 3.0 .^18.0 0.0 8: -de. 38 ' 137 39 58 40 37 , -I?'' 70.0 8.0 - - 20.0 55.0 f 4'26.0 _ 11.0 63.0'''' 0-.- 23.0 J\u0026lt;740 100.0 13.0 Sih 0.0 ^'\"40 ' -at 92.0 . ST 18.o 0.0 70.0 3.0 3.0 I! 77 71 , 37 Jf 40 60 38 40 80 38 20 V  34 1316 - . 62.0 70.0 51.0 78.0 62.0  - 26.0 83.0 \u0026lt;,.27.0 14.0 32.0 10.0 23.0 58.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 5.0 130 0,0 1.0 8.0 7.0 3.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 6.0 11.0 0.0 5-0 .ivi- lO-O 0.0 ^160 69.0 87.0 94.0 66.0 73.0 84.0 92.0 70.0 88.0 85.0 69.0 18.0 2.0 0.0 24.0 i 5.0 5.0 0.0 20.0 6.0 6.0 \" 19.0 3.0 - 8.0 3.0 8.0 20.0 0.0 5.0 . 10.0 y 6.0 3.0 6.0 10.0 30 3.0.$^. 3.0 * 3.0 11.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 Lunch 69.0 92.0' 68.0 ' 55 0'\" 92.0 61.0 54.0 13.0 980 8.0 92.0 J*', 10.0 52.0:^ 83.0 83.0 f 44.0 16.0 54.0 68.0 87.0 . \u0026lt; 50.0 1 90.0 \u0026lt; 79.0 87.0 70.0 if 88.0 88.0 66.0 W w -\u0026lt;? A' % \u0026gt;- 39 \u0026amp; P 39 .M 39 3 - 7\u0026lt; 30.0 /-^-../.O . iX 0.0 J Source: Little Rock School District Each preschool classroom had one preschool teacher and one paraprofessional teacher leading classroom instruction for a total of 69 preschool teachers and 69 paraprofessional teachers. Within the 27 elementary schools that participated in the study, there were 1,966 kindergarten students in 115 kindergarten classrooms, and 1,899 first-grade students in 99 first grade classrooms. Table 2 summarizes the breakdown of early education classes per school. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 19Table 2. Early Education Classes by School, 2005-2006 No. School Bale Baseline Brady Carver Chicot Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M.L. King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rockerfeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff Total Students 340 299 378 520 591 309 137 415 446 651 337 451 616 377 453 383 593 334 493 375 576 644 504 641 517 294 288 236 No. Prekindergarten XArVl\u0026gt;k'.r ' ' . ^Students/^^*^ Classes/ j -.'Jrekindetgarten'' Teachers .Prekindetgarten' ' s\u0026gt;- Q I' 39 -a -.38 40 39 \u0026gt; 58 - -\u0026gt;'^40 \\^2 40 V 8 . 71 37 \\ 40 39 39 60 70 38 40 - ' 80 38 \u0026gt; 20  17 - 34 1316 Source: Little Rock School District 'a f 5*'' '4e-^ 4 2 2  4 - 2 ' 1 2 69 No. Students, K 62 41 80 76 101 57 N/A 61 84 102 55 61 98 41 76 73 100 60 59 59 98 120 78 99 100 40 46 39 1966 No. K Classes/ Teachers 4 3 5 4 7 4 N/A 3 5 6 3 4 6 3 4 4 5 3 3 4 6 7 4 5 5 2 4 2 115 Students, I** grade 50 * 35 N/A \" A 7V. L . 65 120 50 \" IZ : s 86 54\" 70 73 95 50 64 64\\ 87 115 97 100 92 48 48 , 34 1899 No. I\" Grade Classes/ Teachers? 2 N/A^ \u0026amp;3 o -sr, 3 4 2 3/ 4 6 6 4 - . 6  4 7 2 :f.-4 rl\n2 99. ?' J 2 1 . 1^ r s**^5 137* \u0026gt; WS w: 2 2 3 6 2 2 2 3 4 ,- , a 2  . 3 INSTRUMENTATION A variety of instruments were used to collect qualitative data. Site researchers employed two observation tools for use in viewing literacy instruction in prekindergarten classrooms. A principal protocol was designed to determine principals understanding of the Prekindergarten Literacy program at their school. CREP also developed four questioimaires that were disseminated to: (a) prekindergarten teachers, (b) prekindergarten paraprofessionals, (c) kindergarten and first grade teachers, and (d) parents/guardians of the prekindergarten students. All questionnaires were designed to gather perceptions and attitudes of the Prekindergarten Literacy program. Finally, a data from a prekindergarten screening inventory were analyzed. A detailed description of each follows. Classroom Observation Measures 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 20In April 2006,4 site researchers from CREP visited 17 randomly selected prekindergarten classrooms in 12 different schools. The following tools were used to capture literacy instruction and record observations: Early Literacy Observation Tool (E-LOT^). The E-LOT is the preschool version of the Literacy Observation Tool (LOT) both of which were developed by researchers at CREP as an instrument for observing in elementary classrooms where teachers are engaged in teaching reading and other literacy practices (Smith, Ross, \u0026amp;Grehan, 2002). The LOT has been aligned to the National Reading Panel and National Research Council findings and captures all five essential components of the Reading First program. The E-LOT has been customized to accurately reflect preschool activities, especially as they relate to literacy. Individual observations and the summary are organized around the following categories: Instructional Orientation, Instructional Components, Learning Centers (types and activities). Student Activities and Teacher Interactions during the Learning Centers, Classroom Environment and Climate, and Visible Print Environment. The subcategories of Instructional Components include the five essential components of reading including: Concepts of Print, Alphabetic and Phonological Awareness, Fluency, and Vocabulary and Oral Language Development. The E- LOT captures explicit instruction in these five component areas. Quantitative data yielded by the observations reflect the degree to which targeted components are occurring in classrooms. The rubric ratings range from 0 = Not observed, to 1 = Rarely, 2 = Occasionally, 3 = Frequently, and 4 = Extensively observed. There are two forms for recording observations of literacy instruction on the LOT. The Literacy Observation Tool Notes form is completed for each teacher observed. At the conclusion of the observation period, the individual notes forms are then synthesized and summarized on the Literacy Observation Tool Data Summary form. Whereas the standard LOT procedure involves a trained observer visiting 7-9 randomly selected classrooms, for 10 minutes each, during the typical PA to 2 hour reading/ literacy block, the E-LOT can be structured differently. As in the case of this study, E-LOT observations are typically targeted observations. Rather than observing multiple classrooms for 70 to 90 minutes, targeted observations require the observer to remain in one classroom for this period of time. This type of observation allows the site researcher to view the full spectrum of activities, including both direct instruction and learning center instruction. All observations in this study were targeted E- LOTs. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 21A recent reliability study using Generalizability Theory (Sterbinsky \u0026amp; Ross, 2003) indicated that LOT observations have a reliability of .75 when at least five LOTs are completed in a school. Additionally, the validity of the LOT was assessed via a content validation process in the development phase, including the use of a panel of subject matter experts, both researchers and practitioners, from areas such as the University of Memphis, the Memphis City Schools, and the state departments of education in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Illinois. To ensure the reliability of data, observers receive a manual that describes and operationally defines reading variables that comprise the E-LOT and participate in formal training to ensure that the identifying and coding of reading variables occurs in a consistent manner to guarantee the reporting of reliable and valid data. After receiving the manual and instruction in a group training session, each observer participates in sufficient practice exercises and an inter-rater reliability consensus rating process to ensure that his/her data are comparable with those of experienced observers. The LOT was piloted in the Memphis City Schools and is used in multiple schools across the United States, including 70 Reading Excellence Act (REA) and 75 Reading First (RF) schools in the state of Tennessee. The REA and RF evaluations and research studies include rigorous matched control quasi-experimental designs for which the LOT is the primary outcome measure. The E-LOT has been used in two Early Reading First projects, in Tennessee and Oklahoma, and will be prominent in a federally funded, longitudinal study of preschools in the Memphis City Schools system. A copy of the E-LOT can be found in Appendix A. Early Language \u0026amp; Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO). The ELLCO is a toolkit that provides researchers and practitioners with guidelines for describing the degree to which a classroom supports literacy activities. Primarily an environmental checklist, the ELLCO contains three assessment tools: a Literacy Environment Checklist, protocols to conduct classroom observation and administer teacher interviews, and a Literacy Activities Rating Scale. The total time to complete the observation is approximately one to one and one-half hours. The ELLCO is used for research purposes in over 150 preschool classrooms and has an established statistical reliability of 90% or better. Interviews During May, 2006, 10 randomly selected principals from schools with prekindergarten programs participated in a 30-45 minute phone interview with CREP researchers. An interview I 7  )\ni. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 22 (' I 1,'^ S'protocol was developed for this study and included questions regarding the principals perceptions of the prekindergarten program at their school and the impact of the program on student achievement, with special note of the impact on African American achievement. Principals were also asked questions regarding the impact the prekindergarten program had on literacy instruction, parental involvement and professional development. Principals were asked to reflect on the perception of other teachers and personnel at the school regarding the program. A copy of the principal interview protocol is included in Appendix B. Surveys Prekindergarten Teacher Questionnaire (PKTQ) Prekindergarten teachers in all 28 schools examined in this study were asked to complete the PKTQ. The PKTQ was designed to capture teachers attitudes and perceptions of their schools prekindergarten program and their experiences as prekindergarten teachers. The PKTQ contained 3 sections. Section 1 consisted of 26 items teachers were asked to evaluate using a 5- point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed included teachers understanding of the prekindergarten program, principal and staff support of the program, the impact the program had on student achievement and parental involvement, and professional development experiences. The second section contained 7 items which collected demographic information\nand the final section allowed teachers to record their own responses to 4 open-ended discussion questions. These questions were: What are the most effective aspects of the prekindergarten program? What are the least effective? Do you think the prekindergarten program should be continued? Why or Why not? What type of professional development have you received as a preschool teacher? Prekindergarten Paraprofessional Teacher Questionnaire (PKPTQ) Prekindergarten paraprofessional teachers in all 28 schools with prekindergarten programs were asked to complete the PKPTQ. The PKPTQ was designed to capture paraprofessional teachers attitudes and perceptions of their schools preschool program and their experiences as paraprofessional teachers. Like the PKTQ, the questionnaire for paraprofessionals contained 3 sections. Section 1 consisted of 18 items paraprofessional teachers were asked to evaluate using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed included paraprofessional teachers imderstanding of the prekindergarten program, principal and staff support of the program, collaboration with their prekindergarten 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 23I ,1 teacher, the impact the program had on student achievement and parental involvement, and professional development experiences. The second section contained 7 items which collected demographic information\nand the final section allowed paraprofessionals to record their own responses to 4 open-ended discussion questions. These questions were: What are the most effective aspects of the prekindergarten program? What are the least effective? Do you think the prekindergarten program should be continued? Why or Why not? What type of professional development have you received as a preschool paraprofessional teacher? Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (CTQ) Kindergarten and first grade teachers in all 28 schools with prekindergarten programs were asked to complete the CTQ. The CTQ was designed to capture these teachers attitudes and perceptions of their schools prekindergarten program. This questionnaire also contained 3 sections. Section 1 consisted of 12 items in which teachers were asked to evaluate using a 5- point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed included teachers understanding of the prekindergarten program, support of the program, effectiveness of the program, and impact of the prekindergarten on student achievement and parental involvement. The second section contained 7 items which collected demographic information\nand the final section allowed teachers to record their own responses to 3 open-ended discussion questions. I 'M tl I These questions were: What are the most effective aspects of the prekindergarten program? What are the least effective? Do you think the prekindergarten program should be continued? Why or Why not? Parent/Guardian Questionnaire (PQ) All parents/guardians of prekindergarten students were asked to complete the PQ. The PQ was designed to capture attitudes and perceptions of their childs prekindergarten program. This questionnaire consisted of 12 items in which parents or guardians were asked to evaluate using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Items assessed included their understanding of the prekindergarten program, the impact the program had on their child, and their overall perceptions of the teacher and the school. Respondents were also asked to indicate their childs ethnicity, age, and gender. The final section allowed parents/guardians to record their own responses to 2 open-ended discussion questions. These questions were: What are the best things about your childs preschool experience? What changes would you like to see in the preschool program at this school? fl p I Jj !! r'i, r r 1 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 24 1A copy of all four surveys: PKTQ, PKPTQ, CTQ, and PQ can be found in Appendix C. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 257 SCREENING ASSESSMENTS Early Screening Inventory (ESI). The Early Screening Inventory is a developmental screening instrument that was revised and standardized in 1997. Published by Pearson Early Learning, ESI allows the childs teacher to quickly screen and assess children in the areas of motor development, language development, and cognition. ESI is considered highly reliable and valid, with 9 out of 10 children at risk for failure to be adequately identified. ESI is a continuous protocol divided into two sections: ESI-P is for 3-41/2 year olds and ESI-K is for ages 4.5 years to age 6. The 2005-2006 school year was the first year for prekindergarten teachers to use the Early Screening Inventory to assess their students. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS In addition to the screening assessments, interviews, questionnaires, and observation tools, student achievement data were derived from student scores on the Work Sampling System (WSS), the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), the Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI), and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). A description of each assessment follows. Work Sampling System (WSS). Developed in 1995, WSS is a performance assessment system, rather than a battery of tests, that assesses and documents childrens skills, knowledge, behavior, and accomplishments over a spectrum of educational areas and throughout a variety of occasions. WSS is a method in which teacher observations are organized around a set of criteria and procedures. There are 3 primary components to WSS: (1) Development Guidelines and Checklists, (2) Portfolios, and (3) Summary Reports. The checklists are designed for teachers to complete without formally testing their students. Each checklist covers seven areas including personal and social development, language and literacy, mathematical thinking, scientific thinking, social studies, the arts, and physical development. Portfolios are used to collect meaningful representations of childrens work\nfinally, summary reports are designed to be completed three times a year and are a way of translating the information from the checklists and portfolios into an easily understood document for parents and teachers. For the purposes of this study, WSS fall 2005 prekindergarten students results were collected and compared with WSS spring 2006 prekindergarten students results as a measure of student growth throughout the year. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 26 I \nVDynamic 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 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. The measures were developed upon the essential early literacy domains discussed in both the National Reading Panel (2000) and National Research Council (1998) reports to assess student development of phonological awareness, alphabetic understanding, and automaticity and fluency with the code. Each measure has been thoroughly researched and demonstrated to be reliable and valid indicators of early literacy development and predictive of later reading proficiency to aid in the early identification of students who are not progressing as expected. When used as recommended, the results can be used to evaluate individual student development as well as provide grade-level feedback toward validated instructional objectives. The Institute has validated the instruments ability to predict outcomes and has tested its reliability with young children across the country. Not all students in the LRSD were assessed with DIBELS. Primarily DIBELS was administered to those kindergarten students in Reading First schools or those students who did not do well on portions of the QELI. Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI). The QELI is an assessment tool primarily for kindergarten students. The QELI identifies student development as either developed,' developing, or delayed in six areas: general knowledge, oral communication, written language, math concepts, work habits, and attentive behavior. The QELI is an inventory, not a test, which teachers complete on each child based on recent observations of the students behavior. In 2000, a national standardization study was conducted and norms were established to allow for a variety of interpretations of the scores. The state of Arkansas requires all incoming kindergarten students to be inventoried with the QELI. For the purposes of this study, fall 2005 QELI results for all incoming kindergarteners were collected for comparisons between those who had attended prekindergarten the prior year and those who had not. Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). The ITBS is a norm-referenced group administered test that measures the skills and achievement of students in grades K-8 and was developed at the 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 27 I i S! 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. For analysis of kindergarten students, spring 2006 ITBS achievement scores were used. For the longitudinal analysis of the prekindergarten program, 10 years of ITBS data were compiled in which comparisons between those cohorts who attended preschool in the LRSD were compared with those students who did not attend preschool in the LRSD. Table 3 sununarizes each evaluation question, the relevant participants, and the measurement used for analyses. I.-\nI I I b' '.i III J 5 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 28 1Table 3. Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Participants Data Sources Methodology Primary Question 1. Has the prekindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Xt\n2005-2006 Prekindergarten students in the 28 state-funded LRSD preschool sites Prekindergarten student  program data - Work Sampling System scores (2005-2006 data) Fall scores compared to spring scores for notable gains. B: 2005-2006 LRSD kindergarten students C: Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI) or Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Fall 2005 data\nDIBELS in Reading First schools only Spring 2006 ITBS kindergarten scores Kindergarten Fall QELI or DIBELS scores: comparisons of 2004-2005 prekindergarten students vs. non-prekindergarten students. Supplemental Questions 1. What are the quality of instruction and level of implementation of prekindergarten programs in classroom environments at the 28 schools implementing in 2005-2006? 2. What is the level of participation in prekindergarten by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? All LRSD students in 1- 10 grade All prekindergarten teachers All prekindergarten paraprofessionals All K and 1 grade classroom teachers at schools with prekindergarten programs Principals at prekindergarten schools Randomly selected pre kindergarten classrooms All prekindergarten schools  ITBS District longitudinal achievement data PKTQ PKPTQ CTQ Phone interviews of 10 randomly selected principals ELLCO and E-LOT School records/archival data ITBS scores compared between previous prekindergarten students vs. non- prekindergarten students. Comparison of those identified as former prekindergarten participants vs. those who did not attend LRSD piekindergarlen All surveys collected participants attitudes and perceptions regarding prekindergarten program. Phone intenriews gathered principals' attitudes and perceptions regarding prekindergarten management. Classroom environments and literacy instruction were evaluated using obsen/ation tools Comparisons of African American prekindergarten population relative to other ethnic groups 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 29Table 3, continued. Evaluation Question Participants Data Sources Methodology 3. To what extent does the prekindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify and monitor the progress of African American children who may be at-risk for academic failure? All prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals PKTQ\u0026amp;PKPTQ Teachers attitudes and perceptions regarding screening collected 2005-2006 prekindergarten  student data Early Screening Inventory (ESI)  ' Database analyzed for screening records Principals 4. What are the perceptions of prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessional teachers regarding the prekindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of principal, K and 1* grade classroom teachers regarding the prekindergarten program Implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of prekindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Phone interviews of 10 randomly selected principals Principals knowledge and perception of screening collected All prekindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals PKTQ\u0026amp;PKPTQ Teachers attitudes and perceptions regarding the prekindergarten program collected All K \u0026amp; 1 grade classroom teachers 10 randomly selected principals Parents/guardians of all 2005-2006 LRSD prekindergarten students CTQ Principal phone interview PQ Teachers attitudes and perceptions regarding the prekindergarten program collected Principals attitudes and perceptions regarding the prekindergarten program collected. Parents/guardians attitudes and perceptions regarding the prekindergarten program collected PROCEDURE Data for the evaluation were collected April-May 2006 for the 2005-2006 school year. During the week of April 17^, 12 randomly selected preschool sites were visited and observed using the E-LOT and the ELLCO. All observations were conducted by trained CREP researchers. Also in April, all teacher questionnaires were disseminated during school faculty meetings. Prekindergarten teachers were responsible for distributing parent questionnaires to preschool parents. In May, 10 randomly selected principals were interviewed via phone. Student achievement data were received from the district during the summer and fall of 2006. METHODS - EARLY SCREENING INVENTORY Sample. In 2005-2006, the Little Rock School District reported that the Early Screening Inventory (ESI) was administered to 1,206 preschool students. Due to duplicate records, missing student identification numbers, and missing inventory scores, the final sample consisted of 1,105 students enrolled in the Little Rock preschool program. The sample was drawn from 28 LRSD preschool sites included all eligible students who were enrolled in preschool in 2005-2006. The number of students from each of the schools appeared to be reflective of preschool enrollment. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 30 IIn the previous year, 1,068 students were enrolled in Little Rock preschool programs. Students per school ranged from 15 to 113 students (See Table 1). Seventy-one percent of the preschool students in the sample were African Americans. Most students were English speaking (95%), eligible for free or reduced price lunch (68%), and did not have a formal lEP (100%). There were slightly more females (51%) than males in the sample. Tables 4 and 5 summarize the sample population. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 3]Table 4. ESI Sample by School Whole Sample African Americans School Name N Percent N Percent Bale Baseline Brady Carver Chicot Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowclitf Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff Total 35 30 37 15 50 31 3.2 2.7 3.3 1.4 113 37 50 18 30 20 4.5 2.8 10.2 3.3 30 23 28 12 36 17 71 62 32 40 35 18 31 46 66 35 35 68 32 19 15 34 1105 4.5 1.6 2.7 1.8 6.4 5.6 2.9 3.6 3.2 1.6 2.8 4.2 6.0 3.2 3.2 6.2 2.9 1.7 1.4 3.1 100.0 75 9 50 1 28 4 43 42 16 31 20 5 20 40 62 24 28 56 30 13 13 27 783 3.8 2.9 3.6 1.5 4.6 2.2 9.6 1.1 6.4 0.1 3.6 0.5 5.5 5.4 2.0 4.0 2.6 0.6 2.6 5.1 7.9 3.1 3.6 7.2 3.8 1.7 1.7 3.4 100.0 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 32Table 5. Preschool Demographics Whole Sample African Americans Characteristic Race or Ethnicity White African American Hispanic Asian/Pacitic Islander Native American Other Total Gender Female Male Total Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility Free Full Pay Reduced Total Limited English Proficiency No Yes N 198 783 63 26 2 33 1105 560 545 1105 645 358 102 1105 1045 60 1105 Percent 17.9 70.9 5.7 2.4 0.2 3.0 100.0 50.7 49.3 100.0 58.4 32.4 9.2 100.0 94.6 5.4 100.0 N 404 379 783 554 151 78 783 779 4 783 Percent 51.6 48.4 100.0 70.8 19.3 10.0 100.0 99.5 0.5 100.0 Special Education No 1105 1105 100.0 100.0 783 783 100.0 100.0 Measures. The early screening analysis utilized demographic data and one standardized achievement measures. The demographic characteristics were used for descriptive statistics and as covariates. The achievement measure served as the dependent variable. Demographics. The following student demographic characteristics were provided by Little Rock School District: Race/Ethnicity. Race/Ethnicity was reported in six categories: White, African American, Hispanic, Asian/pacific islander, Native American, and Other. For purposes of this analysis, which centers on remediation of African American students, dummy variables for African American (1) and all Other Races (0) were created. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 33Gender. Gender was reported in two categories: Female and male. In this analysis, female was coded as (1) and male as (0). Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility. Students were coded as being either eligible for free lunch, reduced price lunch or full-pay. Dummy variables were created that condensed free and reduced price lunch eligibility into one category (1) and full-pay into a second (0). This variable served as an imperfect proxy for socioeconomic status. Limited English Proficiency. Students who had limited English proficiency in kindergarten were coded as 1\nthose who were English proficient were coded as 0. Achievement. This report utilized data from the Early Screening Inventory (ESI). The Early Screening Inventory is a developmental screening instrument that was revised and standardized in 1997. Published by Pearson Early Learning, ESI allows the childs pre-k teacher to quickly screen and assess children in the areas of motor development, language development, and cognition. The 2005-2006 school year was the first year for pre-k teachers to use the Early Screening Inventory to assess their students. Design. To describe the extent to which the prekindergarten program used screening assessments and other appropriate measures to identify African-American children at-risk for academic failure, a cross-sectional design that examined one group of students (preschoolers) at one point in time (Fall 2005) was utilized. The reader should note that although this is a common design for social science research, this is not a design suited to draw causal inference. Instead, this design describes who received screening and illustrate conelational relationships between demographics and screening scores. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 34 bMETHODS - STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Students achievement was analyzed using a three-tiered approach in which both immediate and long term results were studied. Methodology for Analysis A, Analysis B, and Analysis C is described below. Analysis A\nPrekindergarten Achievement Sample. For this analysis, the sample was restricted to students enrolled in public school programs and were in a center-based preschool program (n=1342). Furthermore, the sample was restricted to those students who were enrolled in ABC State funded preschool programs. This resulted in a final analysis sample of 1,300 students from 28 schools.* Table 6 illustrates the original number of prekindergarten students in the study and the number of students included in Analysis A. Minor changes in population were expected, due to the dynamic nature of student populations. * This analysis includes 136 students originally omitted due to a coding error. All available student scores are now included in the analysis. 200S -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 35 I1 Table 6. Sample Population: Analysis A 1I I School * Number of Students, Bale Baseline Brady Carver Chicot Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M.L. King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rockerfeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff , Prekindergarten 38 \n40 - 2O.'?...i5.. 71: LiS: 40\n37 60 70 38 40 39 J 19 39 37:W'K--Si 40 58S 40 I Si ijts  80 . 38 , 20 -  17 . 34 1,316 Number of Students, Analysis A 39 45 39 20 75 38 132 39 65 39 39 39 73 72 39 40 40 19 40 55 67 1 41 81 37 20 25 41 1,300 Percent of Sample, Analysis A 3.0 3.5 3.0 1.5 5.8 2.9 10.2 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.6 5.5 3.0 3.1 3.1 1.5 3.1 4.2 5.2 .1 3.2 6.2 2.8 1.5 1.9 3.2 X 100.0 w 39 t  Seventy-five percent of the students in the sample were African American (See Table 7). Most students were English speaking (95%), did not have a formal lEP (99%), and were bom in I 2000 or 2001 (99%). The sample was evenly split between male and female students. I I I 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 36 i Table 7. Demographics of Analysis A sample (n = 1,164) n % Ethnicity American Indian, Alaskan Native Asian Black, African American Hispanic/Latino Other White 2 26 915 72 42 243 .2 2.0 70.4 5.5 3.2 18.7 Gender lEP Language Ages Female Male Yes English Other Spanish Born in 1999 Born in 2000 Born in 2001 Born in 2005 657 643 50.5 49.5 12 1232 17 51 4 429 865 2 .9 94.8 1.3 3.9 .3 33.0 66.5 .2 Measures. The Work Sampling System is a valid, research-based performance assessment that utilizes guidelines and checklists, portfolios, and summary reports. Teachers document childrens skills, knowledge, behavior, and academic accomplishments using age- appropriate instruments. The Work Sampling System (WSS) is published by Pearson Early Learning, has been utilized since 1991 and is purportedly a curriculum-embedded assessment based on national and state standards. Efforts have been made to measure both the validity and reliability of this instrument. In a validity study conducted in 17 urban Title I classrooms, WSS ratings were compared to scores on the nationally-normed, standardized Woodcock Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-Revised and were found to be highly correlated and a stronger predictor variable of test scores than demographic variables (Meisels et al. 2001). Meisels et al. (1995) found high internal and moderately high interrater reliability when they studied the instrument with 100 kindergarten aged children and controlled for gender, maturation, and initial ability. Teachers repeatedly assess childrens growth in the following seven domains: Personal and Social Development 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 31 Language and Literacy Mathematical Thinking Scientific Thinking Social Studies The Arts and Physical Development and Health Students are scored on an ordinal scale with three categories: Not Yet (1) - indicating that the child cannot perform the indicator In Process (2) - the skills, knowledge, behaviors or accomplishments are intermittent or emergent but are not demonstrated reliably or consistently. Proficient (3) - the child can reliably demonstrate the skills, knowledge, behaviors or accomplishments. Design. To determine Afiican American preschool students progress on the domains measured by the WSS, a pre-and post-test design was employed for the sample. In the fall, 2005, teachers used the WSS to determine the baseline status of preschool students in the seven domains, for Time 1 results. Teachers again assessed students midyear. Time 2 results, and again at the end of the year, for Time 3 results. An advantage to this design is that all preschool aged children enrolled in a LRSD public preschool program were assessed. However, this meant there was no comparison group. Therefore, it was problematic to determine if students enrolled in Little Rock preschool programs made better progress (based on the WSS measure) than students who were not enrolled. Additionally, the design was prone to ceiling and floor effects. Students who tested at the highest proficiency stage at Time 1 had no place to move upward - the measurement capped growth for the highest achievers. Likewise, those that scored in the Not Yet category had no option for showing that they regressed. Analysis B\nKindergarten Achievement Sample. For this analysis, achievement results for kindergarten students in the LRSD for 2005-2006 were studied. In 2005-2006, Little Rock School District reported that 2,234 students enrolled in kindergarten\nhowever, 70 students had duplicate records. When the duplicates were removed, a sample size of 2,164 kindergarten students was established Because the purpose of this analysis was to compare students progress in kindergarten for those who attended Little Rock preschool programs with those who did not, a close 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 38 I , I, Jexamination of preschool enrollment was conducted to ensure that students who were counted in the preschool enrollment were fully served. Fully served was defined as enrolling in a LRSD preschool program prior to October 1,2004. Students enrolling by this date were assumed to have received most of a full year of service. Using this definition, we found 83 students identified as having attended preschool programs did not meet the definition of fully served (2 students enrolled in 2006, 19 enrolled in 2005, and 62 enrolled in 2004 but after the cut-off deadline of October These 83 students were reclassified as not having preschool services. Thus, the final analysis sample consisted of 1,098 students who received preschool services from the Little Rock School District and 1,066 kindergarteners who did not. Table 8 summarizes the kindergarten population relative to the prior years prekindergarten attendance. The sample was drawn from 31 Little Rock elementary schools and should include all eligible students who were enrolled in kindergarten in 2005-2006. The number of students from each of the elementary schools was reflective of kindergarten enrollment and ranged from 35 to 108 students per school. Table 9 illustrates the kindergarten population by school. Sixty-six percent of the kindergarten students in the sample were African American. Most students were English speaking (93%), eligible for free or reduced price limch (69%), and did not have a formal lEP (91%). There were slightly more males (52%) than females in the sample. Caucasian students were significantly less likely to have been enrolled in prekindergarten programs than African American students (17 % versus 73%). Students who were determined in kindergarten to have limited English proficiency (LEP) were much less likely to have attended the prekindergarten program. Likewise, kindergarten students who were flagged as needing special education were significantly less likely to have attended a Little Rock preschool program. Table 10 further describes the demographics of the student population. Table 8. Description of PreKindergarten Enrollment Preschool Participants Non-participants N 1098 1066 Whole Percent 50.7 49.3 African Americans N 805 614 Percent 56.7 43.3 N 293 452 Other Races Percent I 39.3 : 60.7 Total 2164 100.0 1419 100.0 745 100.0 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 39Table 9. Description of Enrollment by School Whoie Sample African American other Races School Code 006 017 018 020 021 022 024 025 027 028 029 030 032 033 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 Preschool Participants Non-participants Preschool Participants Non-participants Preschool Participants Non participants N 43 29 37 42 20 21 37 38 14 53 29 41 34 35 65 34 28 28 20 33 54 65 18 Percent 3.9 2.6 3.4 3.8 1.8 1.9 3.4 3.5 1.3 4.8 2.6 3.7 3.1 3.2 5.9 3.1 2.6 2.6 1.8 3.0 4.9 5.9 1.6 N 54 29 37 34 56 20 25 42 25 48 10 21 22 39 38 24 29 31 17 26 42 36 40 Percent 5.1 2.7 3.5 3.2 5.3 1.9 2.3 3.9 2.3 4.5 0.9 2.0 2.1 3.7 3.6 2.3 2.7 2.9 1.6 2.4 3.9 3.4 3.8 N 31 27 35 29 14 19 3 36 10 42 28 8 20 29 46 26 25 10 18 29 51 57 12 Percent 3.9 3.4 4.3 3.6 1.7 2.4 0.4 4.5 1.2 5.2 3.5 1.0 2.5 3.6 5.7 3.2 3.1 1.2 2.2 3.6 6.3 7.1 1.5 N 24 22 30 21 23 12 1 39 10 31 7 4 15 23 28 20 22 5 15 20 41 30 14 Percent 3.9 3.6 4.9 3.4 3.7 2.0 0.2 6.4 1.6 5.0 1.1 0.7 2.4 3.7 4.6 3.3 3.6 0.8 2.4 3.3 6.7 4.9 2.3 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 40 N 12 2 2 13 6 2 34 2 4 11 1 33 14 6 19 8 3 18 2 4 3 8 6 Percent 4.1 0.7 0.7 4.4 2.0 0.7 11.6 0.7 1.4 3.8 0.3 11.3 4.8 2.0 6.5 2.7 1.0 6.1 0.7 1.4 1.0 2.7 2.0 N 30 7 7 13 33 8 24 3 15 17 3 17 7 16 10 4 7 26 2 6 1 6 26 Percent 6.6 1.5 1.5 2.9 7.3 1.8 5.3 0.7 3.3 3.8 0.7 3.8 1.5 3.5 2.2 0.9 1.5 5.8 0.4 1.3 0.2 1.3 5.8Table 9, continued. Whole Sample Preschool Participants African American Other Races School Code N Percent 044 20 1.8 045 20 1.8 046 20 1.8 047 38 3.5 048 40 3.6 050 50 4.6 051 46 4.2 052 46 4.2 Total 1098 100.0 Non-participants Preschool Participants Non-participants Preschool Participants Non participants N 29 15 19 70 60 49 31 48 1066 Percent 2.7 1.4 1.8 6.6 5.6 4.6 2.9 4.5 100.0 N 18 20 18 25 9 33 34 , 43 805 Percent 2.2 2.5 2.2 3.1 1.1 4.1 4.2 5.3 100.0 N 23 15 12 26 6 18 21 36 614 Percent 3.7 2.4 2.0 4.2 1.0 2.9 3.4 5.9 100.0 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 41 N 2 na 2 13 31 17 12 3 293 Percent 0.7 0.7 4.4 10.6 5.8 4.1 1.0 100.0 N 6 na 7 44 54 31 10 12 452 Percent 1.3 1.5 9.7 11.9 6.9 2.2 2.7 100.0Table 10. Kindergarten Demographics Whoie Sample African Americans other Races Preschool Participants N Percent N Non-participants Percent Preschool Participants Non-participants Preschool Participants N Percent N Percent N Percent N Non-participants Percent Ethnicity White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Native American Other Total 191 805 56 15 2 29 1098 17.4 73.3 5.1 1.4 0.2 2.6 100.0 282 614 101 17 11 41 1066 26.5 57.6 9.5 1.6 1.0 3.8 100.0 Gender Female Male 533 565 1098 48.5 51.5 100.0 497 569 1066 46.6 53.4 100.0 398 407 805 49.4 50.6 100.0 288 326 614 46.9 53.1 100.0 135 158 293 46.1 53.9 100.0 209 243 452 46.2 53.8 100.0 Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility Free Full Pay Reduced 662 334 102 1098 60.3 30.4 9.3 100.0 662 339 65 1066 62.1 31.8 6.1 100.0 576 146 83 805 71.6 18.1 10.3 100.0 491 89 34 614 80.0 14.5 5.5 100.0 86 188 19 293 29.4 64.2 6.5 100.0 171 250 31 452 37.8 55.3 6.9 100.0 Limited English Proficiency No Yes 1040 58 1098 94.7 5.3 100.0 973 93 1066 91.3 8.7 100.0 804 1 805 99.9 0.1 100.0 614 614 100.0 100.0 236 57 293 80.5 19.5 100.0 359 93 452 79.4 20.6 100.0 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 42Table 10, continued. Whole Sample African Americans Other Races Preschool Participants N Percent N Non-particIpants Percent Preschool Participants N Percent N Non-particIpants Percent Preschool Participants N Percent N Non-partlcIpants Percent Special Education No Yes 1035 63 1098 94.3 5.7 100.0 945 121 1066 88.6 11.4 100.0 759 46 805 94.3 5.7 100.0 534 80 614 87.0 13.0 100.0 276 17 293 94.2 5.8 100.0 411 41 452 90.9 9.1 100.0 Enrollment in prekindergarten programs was significantly different, Independent samples t test, p\u0026lt;.05 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 43Measures. Analysis B drew upon six demographic and three standardized achievement measures. The demographic characteristics were used for descriptive statistics and as covariates. The achievement measures served as the dependent variable. Demographics. Student demographic characteristics were provided by Little Rock School District and are described below. Prekindergarten Program Enrollment. Each kindergarten student was tagged with an indicator of whether he/she attended a Little Rock prekindergarten program. This field, along with data about the timing of enrollment, was used to construct a variable that defined students as having participated in a full-year of preschool in the Little Rock system (1) or not (0). Race/Ethnicity. Race/Ethnicity was reported in six categories: Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, native American, and other. For the purpose of this analysis, which centers on remediation of African American students, a dummy variable was created for African American (1) and all Other Races (0). Gender. Gender was reported in two categories\nFemale (1) and male (2). Free and Reduced Price Lunch Eligibility. Students were coded as being either eligible for free lunch, reduced price lunch or full-pay lunch. Dummy variables were created that condensed free and reduced price lunch eligibility into one category (1) and full-pay into a second (0). This variable served as an imperfect proxy for socioeconomic status. Limited English Proficiency. Students who had limited English proficiency in kindergarten were coded as 1\nthose who were English proficient were coded as 0. Special Education. Students who had an Individual Education Plan (lEP) in kindergarten were identified as needing special education (1). Those who did not have an lEP were coded as 0. Achievement. This report utilized data from three student achievement measures\nQualls Early Learning Inventory, Dynamic Indicators of Early Literary, and Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Qualls Early Learning Inventory. The Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI) (previously known as the Iowa Early Learning Inventory) is designed to measure six behavioral areas and is intended to be administered in conjunction with a measure of achievement such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). The primary purpose of the QELI is to provide observational information for kindergarten and first graders in the following areas: (a) General Knowledge, (b) Oral Communication, (c) Written Language, (d) Math Concepts, (e) Work 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 44 ftHabits, and (f) Attentive Behavior. The instrument is completed by students classroom teachers and takes about 10 minutes to complete. There are 44 items distributed across the six behavioral areas which are scored on a 3 or 4 point scale ranging from never to often. National norms are used to generate a developmental description of each behavioral area. The three developmental levels that are used for reporting are delayed (0), developing (1), or developed (2). For these analyses, two types of scores were reported for each behavioral area: percent correct (0 to 100) and classification (delayed, developing, developed). Total scores were converted into percent correct so that behavioral areas with different numbers of items could be compared with a similar rating rubric. The QELI has been vetted for validity and reliability. The inventory includes behaviors that: (a) are related to achievement, (b) can be further developed as a result of experience, (c) are not considered a disability if delayed in development, and (d) can be observed in the classroom. In April 1999, kindergarten and first grade teachers from various regions of the U.S. reviewed items and used them in their classes. Early childhood specialists reviewed the final form for content relevance, appropriateness of items, and potential bias. The empirical evidence of validity included correlations among the six QELI behavior scores and correlations between six QELI scores and scores from the subtests of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). The correlations are fairly high among the six QELI scores ranging in value from a low of .594 to a high of .865. The correlations between the six QELI scores and ITBS subtest scores demonstrate low to moderate correlations ranging in value from .178 to .570. In general, the cognitive skills on the QELI were more highly correlated with the scores on the ITBS than the two behavioral skills. Internal-consistency reliability using coefficient alphas for each domain ranged from .80 to .93, which are adequate. The normative data were collected in the spring of 2000. The 2,108 students in the standardization were from 392 kindergarten classes in 47 states. Roughly, the findings indicated that 7% of students were in the \"Delayed\" category, 30% were in the \"Developing\" category, and 63% were in the \"Developed\" category for each of the six domains. The standardization study was conducted concurrently with the national standardization of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Eastman Lukin, 2003). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, 6* Edition (DIBELS) assessments are designed to identify and monitor the 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 45 progress of students who are unlikely to meet state reading standards in third grade. DIBELS is a teacher administered battery of early literacy tests designed for use as benchmark or monitoring assessments so teachers can tailor instruction to meet students needs. The benchmarks are given three times a year, but the tests are quite brief and can be administered in 1 to 3 minutes. Most of the tests have 20 alternate forms allowing teachers to evaluate a struggling student frequently. In this study, the following DIBELS subtests were examined: Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, and Nonsense Word Fluency. Results are reported as total scores. Because each domain has a different possible total score which can change over the three administrations, comparisons can be difficult. Rules are provided to translate scores into At Risk, Some Risk, and Low Risk categories. The intent is that students who are At Risk will be targeted for intensive intervention. For this study, the Risk categorizations were used to determine proportion of students in each category versus the expected proportions. The Little Rock students did not take the full complement of tests (beginning, middle, and end), therefore, growth can not be measured. Instead, analyses concentrated on the end score. The reliability and validity evidence for DIBELS is robust. The Letter Naming Fluency (alternate form: .87) showed the most evidence of reliability. Similarly, these tests had strong predictive and concurrent validity evidence when compared to the Woodcock-Johnson Reading Tests and other measures. The average concurrent validity coefficients (correlations with other measures taken at the same time) were .58 for Nonsense Word Fluency and .44 for Phoneme Segmentation Fluency. The predictive validity coefficients were .47 for Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, and .68 for Nonsense Word Fluency. No data were found concerning the reliability or validity of the instructional risk classifications (Shanahan, 2003\nBrunsman 2003). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) is designed to assess basic skills necessary for students to progress through school. The teacher administered tests are available in Levels, roughly corresponding to the ages of children who will take them (Levels 5 and 6 correspond to kindergarten). At this level, the ITBS takes no more than 30-minutes to complete. For this study, six skill areas were examined: Vocabulary, Word Analysis, Listening, Revised Writing, Concepts Problems, and Math Total (with computation). In addition, two summary scores that combined the six core skill areas were used: Core Total (with no computation) and Core Total (with computation). 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 46Domain scores were reported as normal curve equivalents (NCE) on a scale of 1-99. A normal curve equivalent score is a type of norm-referenced score. It differs from percentile rank score in that it allows meaningful comparison between different test sections within a test. For example, if a student receives NCE scores of 53 on the Reading test and 45 on the Mathematics test, you can correctly say that the Reading score is eight points higher than the Mathematics score. Unlike percentile rank scores, the interval between scores is equal. This means that you can average NCE scores to compare groups of students or schools. Normal Curve Equivalent scores can only be used for students who are similar in age or grade to those in the norming sample. The ITBS tests were normed in 2000 and 2005 based on a national sample of over 100,000 students including kindergarteners. The ITBS tests have been scrutinized in terms of validity and reliability. Content for the ITBS was based on the careful studying of texts and other curriculum materials, the recommendations of professional societies, and the practices of school districts. The authors created subtest intercorrelations and correlations with the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT), a test of problem solving and reasoning\ncorrelations with future grades and future test performance\nstudies of cognitive processes students use for the test, especially for problem solving\nbias studies\nequating studies related to score meaning\nand studies of interpretation and understanding of parents and teachers. The overwhelming evidence is positive, that is, the ITBS scores provide valid measures of basic academic skills, if defined and used in the manner intended. Most subtest reliabilities are in the .80s and .90s across Forms K, L, and M\nin general. Levels 5-8 have lower reliabilities (around .80), Core Total and Composite reliabilities are all above .90. Listening Assessment reliabilities range from .67 to .79 (Brookhart 1996). Design. To determine the impact of participation in a Little Rock prekindergarten program on kindergarten performance, a quasi-experimental, post-test only research design was employed. Students who participated in the Little Rock preschool program were compared to students who did not participate in the preschool program, on performance indicators of student achievement. Demographic characteristics were included as covariates to account for the relative influence of personal characteristics on student achievement. Although this was a robust design for social science research, this was not a design suited to draw causal inference. Instead, the design illustrated correlational relationships between participation and later student achievement. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 47Analysis C: 1** through 10*** Grade Student Achievement Sample. For this analysis, district enrollment records that contained 19,919 students in first through tenth grades in 2006 were utilized. The analysis sample was limited to students who initially enrolled in Little Rock Public Schools in either prekindergarten or kindergarten. Cohorts were defined by the 2006 grade level the students were expected to attain if they were not retained in grade. For example, cohort nine was comprised of students who initially enrolled in either prekindergarten in 1995 or kindergarten in 1996. Thus, the final sample for analysis included 12,852 students who initially enrolled in a Little Rock school and remained enrolled in Little Rock schools throughout their school career. Of these, a total of 4,664 (36.3%) had been enrolled in a prekindergarten program. Overall, students who had been enrolled in a prekindergarten program were somewhat more likely to be African American (76% versus 72% of comparison students) and less likely to be male (48% versus 51% of comparison students\nsee Table). Prekindergarten and comparison students were equally likely to receive free or reduced- price lunch (64% each). Table 11 provides a summary of these demographic variables by cohort and prekindergarten status. Measures. Special education status and current grade level were extracted from LRSD enrollment records to permit an examination of special education refenal rates and retention in grade for African American prekindergarten versus African American comparison students. Four ITBS normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores from the 2005-2006 school year were used as student achievement outcome variables: Total Reading, Spelling, Revised Writing, and Math Core Total - Computation. These were selected because they were the only subtests for which scores were available for all grade levels considered. Analyses. Mean proportions of African American students who received special education status and who were enrolled at the expected grade level were computed for each cohort. Within each cohort, analyses were performed to determine whether there was a statistically significant relationship between African American students prekindergarten status and their remaining at the appropriate grade level or receiving special education status. To control for the large number of comparisons, a sequential Bonferroni procedure was used, and the critical value of alpha set alp  .005. For ITBS NCE scores, a 2 (PK vs. Comparison) X 2 (African American vs. Other) X 10 (Cohorts) X 4 (ITBS subtests) multivariate analysis of covariance was performed, with free or reduced price lunch serving as a covariate. Wilks 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 48 lambda was employed as the criterion of multivariate significance. Where multivariate results indicated significant main or interaction effects, follow-up univariate analyses of covariance were performed. Effect size estimates were computed by subtracting the comparison group adjusted mean from the prekindergarten adjusted mean, and dividing by 21.06 (the national norm NCE standard deviation). 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 49Table 11. Proportion of Students who were African American, Received Free or Reduced-Price Lunch, or were Male by Cohort and Prekindergarten Participation Status Cohort 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Comparison Prekindergarten Black .62 .73 .68 .72 .68 .75 .69 .74 .72 .77 .76 .77 .76 .78 .77 .76 .76 .85 .76 .81 .72 .76 Free or Reduced- Price Lunch .66 .69 .68 .70 .70 .63 .69 .66 .66 .68 .66 .63 .62 .60 .63 .60 .57 .61 .51 .50 .64 .64 Male .50 .48 .53 .48 .52 .51 .54 .50 .50 .51 .51 .45 .50 .41 .52 .41 .50 .51 .49 .44 .51 .48 N 920 659 \"922 615 W 616 753 610 528 '875\"\" 405 \"sir 312 788\" 292 311 797 316 4664 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 50DATA COLLECTION Table 12 provides the type of measure, instrument, brief time line, and number and description of collection process. Table 12. Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Site Visits Surveys Interviews Data Analysis and Reporting Instrument ELLCO \u0026amp; E-LOT Timeline April 2006 Number Collected 17 Prekindergarten teacher Paraprofessional K\u0026amp; 1Teacher Parent/Guardian Principal Phone Interview WSS.QELI, ESI DIBELS, ITBS Spring 2006 Spring 2006 Spring 2006 Spring 2006 May 2006 Received in Summer and Fall 2006 64 58 144 686 10 Description Four trained site researchers from CREP observed 17 classrooms at 12 sites\nLiteracy activities including direct instruction and learning centers were observed. Each observation lasted approximately 90 minutes and included a brief teacher interview. Distributed by principals: all prekindergarten teachers were asked to complete\nresponse rate: 92.8% Distributed by principals\nall paraprofessionals were asked to complete\nresponse rate: 84.1% Distributed by principals\nall teachers asked to complete\nresponse rate: 67.3% Distributed by prekindergarten teachers\nall parents/guardians of prekindergarten students asked to complete\nresponse rate: 52.1%_______________________________ Conducted by CREP researcher\nrandomly selected principals were interviewed via phone for 30-45 minutes Data was sent at various times from LRSD. RESULTS When applicable, the results of this study are summarized and presented with distinctions or comparisons between African Americans and those of other races, or of non-African American ethnicity. This format was utilized due to the nature of the study and the primary and supplementary goals of the research to explore distinctions in student achievement results, as well as in program implementations, attitudes, and perceptions of the prekindergarten programs. Prekindergarten Teacher Questionnaire Descriptive results. During the spring of 2006, all 69 prekindergarten teachers in the LRSD were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their perceptions of the prekindergarten program. The Prekindergarten Teacher Questionnaire (PKTQ) contained 26 items teachers were asked to evaluate using a 5-point Likert scale. Also included in the questionnaire were 7 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 51 demographic items and 4 open-ended questions. There were 64 prekindergarten teachers who completed the questionnaire20 who were African American, 40 who were other ethnicities, and 4 who did not indicate ethnicity. A complete summary of the 26 items can be found in Table 13. Overall responses from both African American teachers and teachers of other ethnicity were very positive regarding the prekindergarten program, with 19 items in which over 80% of all teachers expressed either strong agreement or agreement. These items were:  Teachers had a thorough understanding of the schools Prekindergarten Literacy program\n There was adequate initial and ongoing professional development/training for implementation of Prekindergarten Literacy program\n The professional development provided by the district was valuable\n The principal was an effective instructional leader\n Student achievement was positively impacted by the Prekindergarten Literacy program\n The program was valuable for improving the achievement of African American students\n There were adequate materials to implement the program\n The content areas in the curriculum map were appropriate for the Prekindergarten Literacy program\n The monthly benchmark goals were realistic for Prekindergarten Literacy programs\n The preschool teachers were generally supportive of the Prekindergarten Literacy r .1 program\n The teachers were encouraged to communicate concerns questions, and ideas regarding the Prekindergarten Literacy program\n The Prekindergarten Literacy program was useful as an opportunity for early identification of at-risk African American students\n The program engendered enthusiasm for learning\n The program was valuable in preparing children for kindergarten\n Instructional elements of the program were based on scientifically-based reading research\nI'll I I 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 52 1  Because of the Prekindergarten Literacy program, systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, oral language, vocabulary, concepts of print, and comprehension occurred daily in the schools classrooms\n The literacy and language components were effective for reading readiness\n Group activities engaged the students and complemented instruction and,  Learning centers engaged the students and complemented instruction There were two items to which African American and other teachers had comparable negative responses: because of the preschool program, more parents were involved in the school\nand that they had time to collaborate with other prekindergarten teachers. For African American teachers, 45.0% responded favorably regarding parental involvement and 70.0% responded favorably regarding collaboration with other prekindergarten teachers. For those who were of other ethnicities, just over half of the respondents (52.5%) agreed that more parents were involved because of the prekindergarten program, and 70.0% responded favorably regarding teacher collaboration. There were 5 items in which there were notable differences between African American and other respondents. These items included the following:  Teachers had sufficient planning time to implement the Prekindergarten Literacy program: 85% of the African American teachers responded favorably to this item, while 72.5% of others responded favorably\n Interim and anchor assessments in the prekindergarten literacy curriculum are useful in assessing growth and progress: 95% of the African American teachers agreed with this item, while only 72.5% of others were in agreement.  Teachers had a thorough understanding of the prekindergarten curriculum map: 80% of the African American teachers agreed, while for others, the percentage was much higher at 95.0%.  Teachers in the school who were not part of the preschool program were supportive of the Prekindergarten Literacy program: for Afncan American teachers, 75% agreed with this statement\nwhereas, 90% of other ethnicity teachers responded favorably.  The Prekindergarten Literacy program was useful in monitoring progress of Afncan American students: 75/o of the African American teachers responded favorably\nthe level of agreement for this item rose to 85% for other ethnicities. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 53Demographic data. Over half (65.0%) of the African American teachers who responded to the demographic items reported that they had 5 years or fewer experience as a prekindergarten teacher\nfor other teachers, 45% indicated 5 years or fewer experience. Only 5% of the African American teachers indicated prekindergarten teacher experience that was more than 16 years, while 15% of the teachers of other ethnicity had more than 16 years experience. Regarding educational level, 35% of African American respondents had a bachelors degree, 30% indicated they had a masters degree, and 15% reported a degree beyond a masters. For non-African American respondents, half reported they had a bachelors degree, 37.5% a masters degree, and 5% indicated they had a degree beyond a masters. Respondents ages were well distributed among all the age groups. At the two extremes, of those that responded, 20% of both African American teachers and other teachers indicated they were 29 years old or less\nwhile 10% of the African American teachers responded they were 60 years old or older, and 2.5% of the other ethnic groups indicated this age. All teachers who responded said they were female\nand 60.9 indicated they were Caucasian, 31.3% African American, and 1.6% Pacific Islander. Table 14 contains all demographic responses. Open-Ended Responses. Teachers were asked several open-ended questions in order to further understand their perceptions of the prekindergarten program. A verbatim list of all prekindergarten teachers responses to all open-ended questions can be found in Appendix D. Teachers were first asked to list the most effective aspects of the program. There were 15 African Americans teachers who responded to this question, and 34 distinct aspects were named. For those teachers of other ethnicities, 33 responded to the question and 78 responses were given. Table 15 categorizes and compares the responses. For African American teachers, the most often named aspect was socialization and interaction with other children, which was mentioned 5 times and comprised 14.7% of the responses. Teachers who were not African American also listed this item in 6 responses, with a frequency of 7.7%. The most popular aspect of the prekindergarten program for other ethnicity teachers was the literacy curriculum, which appeared 21 times for a frequency of 26.9%. Other popular responses for both groups included kindergarten preparation, oral language development and exposure to classroom settings. Teachers were also asked to list the least effective aspects of the prekindergarten program. There were 7 African American teachers who responded to this question and 8 I 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 54 responses were given. Twenty-five non-African American teachers responded to this question for a total of 28 responses. One-fourth (25%) of the African American teachers responded either none or n/a when asked about least effective aspects\nfor other teachers this appeared in 17.9% of the responses. Another popular response for African American teachers was too much paperwork, which appeared in two of eight responses. For other teachers, the frequency of this response was 7.1%. Table 16 has complete results for this question. Teachers were also asked whether they felt the prekindergarten program should be continued and all responded favorably. When asked to list reasons for its continuance, the most common response for both groups of teachers was that it helped prepare the children for kindergarten. See Table 17 for a complete list. Teachers were also asked to list the professional development they had received and responses varied greatly. The most common responses can be found in Table 18. 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 55Table 13. PREKINDERGARTEN TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Total Teacher Responses: 64 Responses of African American Teachers\n20 Responses of non African American Teachers: 40 I have a thorough understanding of my schools Prekindergarten literacy program. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/training for implementation of the Prekindergarten literacy program. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Professional development provided by the district has been valuable. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non Ahican American teachers % Strongly Agree . \u0026amp; Agree 98.4 100.0 100.0 95.3 90.0 100.0 93.8 90.0 97.5 The principal is an effective instructional leader. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Teachers are given sufficient planning time to implement the Prekindergarten literacy program. 79.7 80.0 82.5 % Neutral 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 5.0 0.0 6.3 10.0 2.5 12.5 10.0 12.5 % Strongly Disagree \u0026amp; Disagree 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 5.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Student achievement has been positively impacted by the Prekindergarten literacy program. 76.6 85.0 72.5 9.4 10.0 10.0 14.1 5.0 17.5 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Overall, this program is valuable for improving the achievement of African American students. 95.3 90.0 97.5 1.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers I have time to collaborate with other Prekindergarten teachers. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers I have adequate materials to implement the program. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers The content areas presented in the curriculum map are appropriate for the Prekindergarten literacy instruction. 93.8 90.0 95.0 70.3 70.0 70.0 92.2 100.0 90.0 1.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.1 15.0 12.5 12.5 5.0 17.5 3.1 0.0 5.0 4.7 0.0 5.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers The monthly benchmark goals are realistic for Prekindergarten literacy programs. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers The interim and anchor assessments in the Prekindergarten literacy curriculum are useful in assessing growth and progress. 922 90.0 92.5 95.3 95.0 95.0 6.3 5.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers I have a thorough understanding of the Prekindergarten curriculum map. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Because of the Prekindergarten literacy program, more parents are involved in the school. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers 79.7 95.0 72.5 89.1 80.0 95.0 50.0 45.0 52.5 15.6 0.0 22.5 4.7 5.0 5.0 4.7 5.0 2.5 1.6 5.0 0.0 31.3 35.0 30.0 15.6 10.0 17.5 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 56Table 13, continued. Total Teacher Responses: 64 Responsesof African American Teachers: 20 Responses of non African American Teachers: 40_____________________________________ Preschool teachers in the school are generally supportive of the Prekindergarten literacy program. % Strongly Agree \u0026amp; Agree % Neutral , Strongly Disagree \u0026amp; Disagree Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Teachers in the school (not preschool teachers) are generally supportive of the Prekindergarten literacy program. 90.6 90.0 95.0 7.8 10.0 5.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Teachers ate encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and ideas regarding the Prekindergarten literacy program. 81.3 75.0 90.0 15.6 25.0 10.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers The Prekindergarten literacy program is useful in monitoring progress of African American students. 90.6 95.0 92.5 7.8 5.0 7.5 1.6 0.0 0.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers The Prekindergarten literacy program is useful as a screening tool for assessing at-risk African American students. 81.3 75.0 85.0 14.1 20.0 12.5 3.1 o:o 2.5 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers With the Prekindergarten literacy program, children are excited about learning. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers The Prekindergarten literacy program is valuable in preparing children for kindergarten. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Instructional elements of the Prekindergarten literacy programassessments, programs, materialsare based on scientifically-based reading research. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Because of the Prekindergarten literacy program, systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, oral language, vocabulary, concepts of print, and comprehension occurs daily in our schools classrooms. 82.8 80.0 87.5 10.9 10.0 10.0 4.7 5.0 2.5 98.4 100.0 100.0 96.9 90.0 100.0 92.2 90.0 92.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 5.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers The literacy and language components are effective for reading readiness. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Group activities engage the students and complement instruction. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers Learning centers engage the students and complement instruction. Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers 95.3 95.0 95.0 96.9 95.0 97.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.8 95.0 95.0 Note: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents. 3.1 0.0 5.0 1.6 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 2.5 2005 -2006 Evaluation of the Prekindergarten Literacy Program 57 JTable 14. PREKINDERGARTEN TEACHER QUESTIONNIARE DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 5 years or fewer 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years How many years experience do you have as a Prekindergarten teacher? Teachers, Total African American teachers Non African American teachers 51.6 65.0 45.0 15.6 20.0 15.0 15.6 10.0 20.0 9.4 5.0 12.5 20 or more years 1.6 0.0 2.5 How many years experience do you have as an employee in any school? Tea\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\u003eCenter for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1067","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":["2005-01"],"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--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","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/1067"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nJA JAN 2 2005 TORING Agenda F NITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting :- n \u0026gt;-c ~ ~ -\u0026lt;O: I: oz ::o\u0026gt; ~~ ::o-,, -c:: ::oz o.....n... .-5 nz )\u0026gt;(J) .......... ::e\n= rm-: :-oc no On l:m mo -c:: ~~ ~ ..... 0~ ::0 =1 ~m z::o n\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; m-fD n n =l ,....mN\noz n\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; ..,.::o m ~ ::0\nJI\ntJ\u0026gt; :\u0026lt; ::0 \u0026gt; qi  0 CD ::0 o-\u0026lt; )\u0026gt;\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; :o:on\ni:O m:I:\ni: 3: CD C:: :m:o~n \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;.).\u0026gt;. 0 z tJ\u0026gt; I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING January 27, 2005 5:30 o.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests B. Student Performance - M. L. King Elementary School Choir Ill. 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 IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: V. A. Remarks from Board Members B. Entry Plan Executive Summary Report to the Board C. Report on Superintendent's Aspiring Principals Institute D. Student Assignment Report E. Budget Update F. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects G. Internal Auditors Report H. Technology Update APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes: Special Meeting - 12-08-04 Regular Meeting - 12-16-04 Special Meeting - 01-13-05 ,... n )\u0026gt;\"D ~~ -\u0026lt;- 031: oz\no\u0026gt; ~~\no.., -c:\noz ,o-n... ,- 0 nz ,\u0026gt;-en ,- :E\n= ,m- -\nco gg 3C m mo -c:\n:g~ il:l ,- 0 ~\no =I ~m z\no n en m- :\u0026lt;\no ,,.qi  o CD\no o-\u0026lt; ,..cn\noon ~~ 3C 3C ~~\non en\u0026gt;... 0 z en Regular Board Meeting January 27, 2005 Page 2 VI. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes VII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report VIII. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember IX. ADJOURNMENT ~ n )\u0026gt; \"'0 ,\n---,~- -e\u0026lt;ll-: oz\n0 )\u0026gt; ~~\n0.., - C:\n0 z o....n... ,- 0 nz ,)\u0026gt;- Cf\u0026gt; ,- ~ := m\"'O h\na 00\ni:~ me -c: c~l:1~,- 0~\n0 =1 ~m z\n0 OCf\u0026gt; m- :\u0026lt;\n0 m )\u0026gt; \"'0  0 a,\n0 o-\u0026lt; )\u0026gt; Cf\u0026gt; ~c=\n~~\ni: 3: ~~\na n Cf\u0026gt; .).\u0026gt;.. 0z Cf\u0026gt; I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME/PERFORMANCE Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. CITIZENS REMARKS C. LR CTA IV. REPORTS / COMMUNICATIONS A. BOARD MEMBERS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: January 27, 2004 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Entry Plan Executive Summary Report to the Board of Education BACKGROUND: The Superintendent's Entry Plan: A New Beginning provided a step-by-step guide to the First 100 Days of my Superintendency. The attached executive summary provides a brief overview of progress made in implementing the plan and establishing a means to communicate effectively with LRSD staff and community. RATIONALE: To provide a clear direction for implementation of necessary change as identified by the Board of Directors, teachers, building administrators and others in the community who are supportive of significant progress toward reaching the established goals and improving student achievement in the Little Rock School District. FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: I ask the Board to accept the report as presented. In addition, I would ask that you provide feedback for progressing beyond the First 100 Days in order to establish guidelines for future positive Board-Superintendent relationship. PREPARED BY: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools\n:,o ~ ~ .~ m\n:,o z ,\u0026gt;- \u0026gt; C 0 3 !=' \"....'. C 0 mz ..... \u0026gt; !:l c'i z 31: m ~ !'\" a, C 0 C') m..... C\ng .\u0026gt;.... m =\"' a:,O oo zZ o\"' \"C :-'\n:,o\n:,o om 'm- \"oC .O...\n.:..,.o.. \"' Executive Summary Report to the Board of Education Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. January, 2005 Superintendent's Entry Plan A New Beginning EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUPERINTENDENT'S ENTRY PLAN FIRST 100 DAYS As we begin the 2005 calendar year, I wanted to provide you with an executive summary of the Superintendent's Entry Plan which encompassed my first 100 days as superintendent of the Little Rock School District. Every School Board member had significant involvement in the successful implementation of the Entry Plan, and for that I thank you. As you know, I made a commitment to visit every school in the district during my first 100 days, and I accomplished that goal. I visited some schools as many as ten times, while I visited other schools just once or twice. The school and department site visits allowed me to hear  directly from staff members about their concerns, challenges and hopes for the district. The interaction was very positive, and some employees told me they were surprised to see me, and were pleased to have an opportunity to express their opinions and advice. The breakfast and lunch meetings at four schools and four administrative sites allowed me to visit in person with more than 300 staff members. Additionally, the community forums, neighborhood coffees, and meetings with teachers, ministers, business leaders, PT A Council and Superintendent's Student Cabinet enabled me to hear from another 900 interested citizens. I have compiled the comments and suggestions provided at all of these meetings and will consider them carefully as we continue our efforts to improve our schools. Some of the issues that were repeated most often related to accountability\nstudent achievement\ncurriculum\nleadership stability\nparent and community involvement\nschool choice options\nWest Little Rock school\nstudent discipline and attendance\nequitable funding\nteacher attendance\nclass size\nlack of materials, books and other resources\nneighborhood issues such as boarded-up houses near schools\ncustomer service\nextended year education\nalternative schools\nportable classrooms\nsite-based management\nschool renovation and maintenance needs\ntechnology assistance\nESL resources\nand lack of adequate professional development. Additionally, I asked the Superintendent's Student Cabinet, PTA Council and Teachers of the Year to complete a brief survey. This input was helpful to me and will be incorporated with notes from the public meetings, and taken into consideration during the development of the organizational audit recommendations. The time and energy invested in the Superintendent's Entry Plan has paid greater dividends than I anticipated. Not only did I receive extremely valuable input during the process, but I also came away with a better understanding of the perceptions of parents, employees and community residents toward our schools. I heard overwhelming support and countless endorsements of the work that our teachers are doing in the classroom. I have great respect for our teachers and for their professionalism and dedication to providing the very best for all our students. I learned that there is a broad base of community support for our schools, and that people are willing to help us address our problems and work with us to develop solutions. I trust that you will agree with me that the Entry Plan has been helpful as a communications tool and that the comments we have gathered will guide us toward achieving the goal of increasing student achievement and improving the climate and academic culture of our schools. !=' !!l C: 0 .zm.. . \u0026gt; en en 1z5\ni:: .zm.. . !TI a, C: 0 C\u0026gt; .m... C: \"C 0 ~ m :\"' a, n oo zZ o en \"C ~ :o:0m::0 'm- \"oC n::o\nl-\u0026lt; DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 January 27, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Superintendent's Aspiring Principals' Institute BACKGROUND: District data reveals that 26% of the current building principals have between 26-30 years of experience\nanother 26% have 31 years of experience or more, resulting in 52% of the current principals who are eligible to retire. With such possibility of employee retirements ahead, it has become necessary and critical to begin training aspiring principals to fill forthcoming vacancies. To this end, the Superintendent's Aspiring Principals' Institute has been revitalized with significant and improved changes. Efforts have begun to identify candidates who will participate in the Institute over the next year. RATIONALE: The Superintendent's Aspiring Principals' Institute has been specifically designed to prepare, train, and hire individuals who will serve our schools with a paradigm of new leadership. The lnstitute's purpose will be to prepare an in-house cadre of emerging leaders who can provide a seamless transition into building leadership with necessary confidence and skills. Through the Institute, these leaders will acquire extensive knowledge concerning research-based and common sense practices to facilitate school improvement, develop an understanding of building culture and enhance student achievement. FUNDING: The cost for the Institute has been shared between School Services and Title II funds. RECOMMENDATION: A presentation will be made at the January Board meeting in order to share with you the lnstitute's process, intended program, and the identified candidates who will be participating. PREPARED BY: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent Dr. Lloyd Sain, Coordinator of Leadership Development\ni: .... m C') C:J: -.iz 00 ~8 -\u0026lt; !=' !!l C 0 m .z.. . \u0026gt; ~ C) z\ni: m .z.. . =\" CD C'l oO zZ o en .,,:-\u0026lt;\no\no om '- .,, mo .C.'.). .\n.o.. en The Superintendent's Aspiring Principals' Institute - Board Report \"Transforming Schools Through Instructional Leadership and Preparation\" Prepared by Dr. Lloyd Sain, Coordinator of Leadership Development Submitted to Dr. Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent - School Services Steering Committee Members Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent - School Services Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent - School Services Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent - Student Discipline Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent - Curriculum Division Frances Jones, Assistant Superintendent - School Services Dr. Deborah Price, Director - Magnet School Assistance Planning Grant Leon Adams, Director of Federal Programs Marion Woods, Coordinator of Staff Development Mr. Dennis Glasgow, Director of Math and Science RATIONALE In addressing proactively the potential turnover and retirement forecast, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has specifically developed the Superintendent's Aspiring Principals' Institute to meet the supply and demand for identifying, training, and hiring highly qualified building administrators for our schools. District data reveals that our present staff of principals brings 474.5 years of combined experience as building administrators and 1,214 years of combined experience in education. Such impressive years of service and experience suggest that many of our veteran administrators are at the height of their careers and could exit educational administration at any juncture. A closer examination of the administrators' total years of service further reveals the following results with regard to the impact of retirement for the category of building principals (see Table 1): Table 1 Total Years of Service in Education for LRSD Principals Years 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31+ 0 2 2 7 6 8 9 Elementary Middle 0 1 0 4 0 3 0 School High 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 School Total 0 3 2 12 7 13 13 Percentage 0% 6% 4% 24% 14% 26% 26%\n:c .... m C') C: ::c -oz co ?.5 me, -\u0026lt; !=' !!l C: C .zm.. . \u0026gt; ~ czi ll: m .z.. . !TI c:, C: C C) .m... C: \"ti C ?\nm :,, c:,n oO zZ ~~\no\no om ~\"ti mo n\no ~ .... The data strongly reveals that 52% of our present building administrators are reaching or have exceeded the appropriate years of service for retirement, which is recognized in Arkansas as 28 years of service. While this high percentage warns us that this district could face a sudden turnover in school leadership in upcoming years, it also suggests that the district has a high level of committed school administrators who have devoted a significant portion of their lives to the Little Rock School District. Nevertheless, the District must enact a preparation and training program that will begin to train and equip emergent leaders to assume the forthcoming leadership roles in schools. To this end, the Little Rock School District has created the Superintendent's Aspiring Principals' Institute, which will prepare an in-house cadre of emerging leaders who:  will provide a seamless transition into building leadership with the necessary confidence and skills.  will acquire extensive knowledge concerning research-based and common sense practices to facilitate school improvement.  develop an understanding of building culture and enhance student achievement. Initial Selection Process Each interested applicant submitted: o a completed application. o a letter of recommendation from their past or present supervisor. o a 1-2 page narrative that explained their professional goals to aspire as a principal and their accomplishments in their present position. A screening committee composed of central office personnel, current principals, and other professionals with expertise and experience in school leadership reviewed the initial applicants' qualifications and selected the applicants who progressed to Phase II. Second Phase of the Selection Process Of the 63 applicants who initially applied, 32 applicants ., ~re selected to participate in Phase II. Throughout the selection process, a total of four candidates withdrew from the process because of personal or professional reasons. Phase II required the participant to: 1) complete an online, timed profile assessment that highlighted certain leadership aspects. 2) complete an on-site case scenario assessment that measured their abilities to problem-solve a school issue, to write coherently, and to organize their thoughts and ideas under a timed environment. 3) submit two additional reference letters that spotlighted their abilities to be a leader. The Final Phase of the Selection Process From these pieces of data, the third and final round of applicants was chosen for an interview. Twenty-five (25) of the 31 applicants were invited to interview with the Selection Committee. A list of the participants who have met the selection process criteria is included with this report. These educators, who will be our first cadre of emerging leaders to participate in the Aspiring Principals' Institute, will be introduced to the Board at the January 27, 2005 meeting. We anticipate that classes will begin on Saturday, February 51\\ they will meet on two Mondays and one Saturday per month over the next year. The candidates will receive training and on-hands experience with instructional leadership as outlined on the timeline and schedule attached.\nr .... m n C: :c -.::,z co ~5 me, -\u0026lt; !=' ~ C: C .zm.. . \u0026gt; \"\"'' czi 31: .zm.. . !'Tl a, C: 8 !!l C: -.::, ~ m :\"' a,n oo zZ o\"' -.::,~ :o:cm::c \u0026lt;...\"tl mo .n..:..:.c.. \"' SELECTED PARTICIPANTS SUPERINTENDENT'S ASPIRING PRINCIPALS' INSTITUTE CANDIDATES Leticia Miller, Ed.D Ericka Mccarroll. Ed.S Diane Smith Katherine Snyder Nancy Swaty Judge Evans Cynthia Collins Monica Norwood Stephen Ewings M' Shay Callicott Jane M. Sharp, Ed.D Steven Wise Shoutell Richardson Teresa Richardson, EdS Barbara Strickland Alma Dawson CURRENT SCHOOL SITE / POSITION Dunbar - CUR. SPEC. Wilson - LITER. COACH Fulbright - K Washington -ASST. PRIN. McDermott - MEDIA SPECIAL! Mabevale Middle - Asst. Principal Jefferson, GT Spec Rightsell, First Grade Tchr Cloverdale El - 4th TCHR Parkview - T chr Forest Heights - TEACHER J. A. Fair, 7th ASST PRIN Wilson - FOCUS LRNG PR Gibbs - LITERACY COACH Williams - TCHR Reading Spec. - IRC Superintendent's Aspiring Principals Institute Timeline 2004-05 (rev. 12/1/04) DATE ACTIVITY PERSON RESPONSIBLE September 9-10 Meet with Communication Dr. Lloyd Sain Department to devise a Suellen Vann communication rollout plan September 9-14 Develop and complete the Dr. Lloyd Sain brochure for printing Suellen Vann Shea Cochran September 20-23 Review and prepare Dr. Lloyd Sain application, writing prompt, Dr. Linda Watson and rubric October 13-25, 2004 Introduce the Aspiring Dr. Lloyd Sain Principals' Rollout Suellen Vann Advertisement and Application Period October 29, 2004 Final day for applications to be Dr. Lloyd Sain submitted November 15-29, 2004 Review applications to identify Selected Panelist of Reviewers potential candidates for Phase II December 1-2, 2004 Notify and Implement Phase II Dr. L. Sain Location: TBD selection process M. Woods Lionel Ward December 6-9, 2004 Phase II On-site Dr. L. Sain 4:00- 7:00 PM/IRC Demonstration: Profile, Dr. L. Watson Letters, and Writing Dr. Debbie Price Marion Woods December 14-15, 2004 Phase II Scoring: Pick up Selection Committee Packets Dr. L. Sain January 4, 2005 Identify Final Phase candidates Selection Committee l:30P.M. and schedule interviews January 5-6, 2005 Notify Participants of Phase III Dr. L. Sain Progression January 7-21, 2005 Fine tune program needs, Steering Committee faculty, curriculum, etc. January 13-14, 2005 Hold interviews with the Phase Selection Committee III finalists January 18-21, 2005 Notify all Phase III applicants Dr. L. Sain of the final results January 18-28, 2005 Send information packets to Dr. L. Sain the participants/faculty January 27, 2005 Hold SAP! Reception Steering Committee 4:30 P.M. February 5, 2005 Aspiring Principals ' Institute Faculty classes begin\n:c .... ~ c::c \"DZ co \u0026gt;r--\u0026lt; O me, -\u0026lt; !=' !!l C C .zm.. . \u0026gt; V) V) iz5\ni: .zm.. . !\" a, C g .m... C \"D C ~ m :\" a, C') oO zZ ~~\n,:,\n,:, om c.... \"D mo .n..\n..,.\n.,. V) Aspiring Principals' Institute Class Schedule 2005 Primary MODULE TITLE/PRESENTER Faculty DATE TIME LOCATION Module I Understanding Self and Others: Organizational Value System Creating a Visionary Leadership Portfolio Module II Creating a High Performance Leaming Culture Module III LRSD Curriculum Overview Module IV Leadmg Assessment and Instruction Module V Relating Teacher Assignment and Student Work Module VI Using Data to Lead Change Module VII Federal State Statutes \u0026amp; LRSD Board Policies and Administrative Directives Module Fiscal Management and VIII Master Schedules Module IX Building and Leading Effective Team ModuleX Parental Involvement Module XI Providing Focused \u0026amp; Sustained Professional Development Module XII Communicating Effectively in a High-performing School Module Interview Techniques XIII Module Special Education XIV Steering Committee Members Dr. Lloyd Sain, Coordinator, Leadership Development Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent - School Services Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent - School Services Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent - Student Discipline Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent - Curriculum Division Frances Jones, Assistant Superintendent - School Services Dr. Deborah Price - Director, Magnet Schools Assistance Planning Grant Leon Adams, Director of Federal Programs Marion Woods, Coordinator of Staff Development Dennis Glasgow, Director of Math and Science In addition to the Steering Committee Members who served as members of the Selection Committee, we also had the participation of our principals who readily understand and recognize the role of today's principal and the needed behaviors and skills to do this job: Frederick Fields, Principal Theresa Ketcher, Principal Ann Blaylock, Principal :,0 m ~ ~ ~ m :,0 z \u0026gt;,... \u0026gt; C: 0 ~\ni: ..... ~ C: :r \"Dz 00 \u0026gt;r- m-\u0026lt; cO, -\u0026lt; !==' !!l C: 0 zm ..... \u0026gt; ~ cz i l!C zm ..... !T1 Dl C: 0 C) ~ C: \"D ~ m :\" Dl n oO zZ o en \"D :--1 :,0:,0 om \u0026lt;m- \"oD .n...:..,..o.. en DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 January 27, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: January 2005 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: Eighty-five percent (85%) of the money from the bond issues approved by the voters in May of 2000 has been spent or obligated for construction and technology upgrades for LRSD school buildings. The list of completed projects contained in my report is a testament to the extent of improvements that have been made to our schools. Possible changes to the architectural drawings for the Forest Heights project may cause some delay in start-up. 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.\n,o m c3 ~ ~ m\n,o z ,\u0026gt;- \u0026gt; C C \n:c -\u0026lt; ~ ex \"tlZ co ~5 me, -\u0026lt; \u0026gt;~  ::c \"tlC ~ ~ fS z z::0 zm ,m- \"0 ' nc:: ::c\n,o c,n \". 'mCJ) ~ CD \u0026gt;c::  CJ) 8~ ZC/l ),,CJ) ::!CJ) om z\n,o Cll\u0026lt; n m CJ) Facility Name Central Fair Park Scott Field Wilson CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 27, 2005 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Project Description I Cost I t:st. compIe11on Date Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Aug-05 Roof ! $245,784 I Mar-05 Track Renovations I $289,056 I Jan-05 HVAC for Cafeteria I $56,000 Feb-05 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - WINTER/ SPRING 2004-05 Facility Name Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Carver 1 Media Center Expansion $167,490 Unknown Gibbs Addition I $705,670 I Dec-05 Meadowcliff Remodel I $164,150 I Jun-05 Oakhurst (Adult Education) New Windows $215,000 Jun-05 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name Project Description I Cost I t:.st. compIe11on Date Booker 1 Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown - Chicot Electrical Upgrade I Unknown Unknown Cloverdale Elementary Addition I $520,750 I Unknown Fair Park Remodel I $799,000 Unknown Forest Heights Remodel I $1,547,000 Unknown Garland Remodel I Unknown Unknown Mitchell I Renovation I $2,212,493 I Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Unknown Rightsell Renovation I $2,494,000 Unknown Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC i $640,QQQ I Aug-05 Woodruff Parking addition $193,777 Unknown BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Administration Asbestos abatement - I $380,495 Mar-03 Administration Fresh air system - - $55,000 Aug-03 Adm-inis-tration- - Fire alarm $32,350 ~g-03 Administration HVAC I $70,000 I Nov-04 - Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 I Oct-01 I Energy efficient lighting + Alternative Learning Ctr. I $82,000 Dec-01 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Aug-02 - -- - ~244,524 --- Bale Classroom addition/renovation Dec-02 - - -.--- - Bale Energy monitoring system Mar-02 - - - ~- Bale Partial _i:_oof replacement $269,587 - Dec-01 Bale HVAC $664,587 Aug-01 Baseline Renovation $953,520 Aug-04 Booker Gym Roof $48,525 Oct-04 Booker ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Aug-04 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Apr-01 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Oct-01 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Feb-02 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Mar-02 Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Nov-04 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Aug-02 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 27, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Carver , Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 May-01 Carver Parking lot $111 ,742 Aug-03 Central HVAC Renovation - Band Area $225,000 Dec-04 Central Reflecting Pond $57,561 Sep-04 Central Parking Student parking $174,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement I $38,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 - - Aug-03 Central Purchase land for school I Unknown Dec-02 Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Dec-02 Central Ceiling and wall repair I $24,000 Oct-01 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Aug-01 Central Front landing tile repair I $22,470 Aug-01 Chicot Drainage $64,700 I Aug-04 Chicot Sound Attenuation $43,134 Jul-04 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting I $189,743 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $1,393,822 Nov-02 Dodd Fire Alarm Upgrade I $9,200 Oct-04 Dodd i Energy efficient lighting $90,665 I Aug-01 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile I $156,299 Jul-01 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC I $215,570 Aug-02 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,149,023 Nov-04 Facilities Service ' Interior renovation I $84,672 . Mar-01 Facility Services !Fire alarm I $12,QQQ I Aug-03 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 I Apr-02 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 I Aug-OJ_ 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 Tnergy efficient lighting $277,594 1 Apr-01 J. A. Fair Press box I $10,784 Nov-00 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 Jun-01 J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement I $38,000 I Jul-03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System I I - $14,000 - - Jul-03 J. A. Fair Roof repairs I $391 ,871 Aug-03 ----- Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Nov-03 - j. ~~- Forest Park - --- Diagonal parking --- $111 ,742 ,-- Aug-03 Forest Park -- - Energy efficient lighting $119,788 May-01 - Energy efficient lighting -+-- - $134,463 - Fulbright Jun-01 -- + - Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation - $11,950 Aug-01 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot $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 $76,447 Apr-01 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 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 Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Apr-01 2\n:c .... ~ \u0026lt;= ::c -,:,z co \u0026gt;r--\u0026lt; O m c, -\u0026lt; s  '  ::c .,, \u0026lt;= gi~ ~z z:\u0026gt;l zm mCJ\u0026gt; ,-0 n\u0026lt;= ::c:\u0026gt;l c,n ~~ ~ CD \u0026gt;\u0026lt;=  CJ) 8~ ZCJ\u0026gt; \u0026gt;CJ\u0026gt; :::!v, om z:\u0026gt;J v,S n m CJ) Facility Name Hall Hall Hall Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mablevale Elem Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan -- McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 27, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Aug-01 Intercom I Feb-01 Security cameras $10,'6o0 Jun-01 Lockers i $43,854 Dec-04 'Energy efficient lighting I $193,679 Jul-01 Roof replacement gym $107,835 May-01 Asbestos abatement Phase I $5QQ,QQQ I Aug-01 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Aug-02 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Jul-02 Asbestos abatement $43,639 I Oct-01 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Nov-02 Parking lot $269,588 Jul-01 Fire Alarm Upgrade $12,000 I Oct-04 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 I Aug-01 Replace HVAC units I $300,000 Aug-02 Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Aug-02 Energy efficient lighting $106,598  Dec-02 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Aug-01 Renovation $6,851,621 Mar-04 Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Apr-04 Asphalt walks I Dec-01 Walkway canopies 1 The total $1.8 million Dec-01 Boiler replacement j is what has been used so far on the Oct-01 Fencing r--- projects listed I Sep-01 , Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. , Aug-01 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 Irrigation System $14,750 Jul-03 Security cameras .i _ $36,300 - Jun-01 Energy efficient lighting I $303,614 May-01 . Stadium stands repair $235,000 Aug-01 Intercom .. $46,000 Feb-02 Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Jul-04 1 Fire Alarm Upgrade I $7,?QQ 1 Sep-04 Energy efficient lighting I $79,411 . Feb-01 Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 I Aug-02 - Fire alarm $16,175 Jul-01 -- Asbestos abatement $253,412  Aug-02 Engergy efficient lighting -+-- $88,297 -- Dec-02 -- ---+---- - Replace cooling tower $37,203 Dec-00 -- Replace shop vent system $20,000 May-01 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Aug-01 Building Remediation $165,000 Jul-04 Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Jul-01 Asbestos abatement $13,000 Jul-01 HVAC renovation $237,237 Aug-01 Energy monitoring system installation $10 ,695 May-01 Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Apr-01 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 Parking lot $138,029 Aug-02 6 classroom addition $888,778 Oct-02 Parkinq Improvements $142,541 Auq-03 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JANUARY 27, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Proiect Descriotion I Cost l Est. Completion Date Parkview !Addition I $2,121,226 I Dec-04 Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 I Jun-02 Parkview I Roof replacement I $273,877 I Sep-01 Parkview Exterior lights I $10,784 I Nov-00 Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls I $301,938 Aug-01 I Parkview Locker replacement I $120,000 I Aug-01 Parkview Energy efficient lighting I $315,ooo I Jun-01 Procurement Energy monitoring system installation I $5,290 I Jun-02 Procurement Fire alarm I $25,000 I Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,2591 Nov-04 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground $17,000 Dec-02 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation I $3,755,041 I Nov-04 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting $84,898 I Apr-01 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 T Aug-01 Rockefeller Parking addition I $111 ,742 Aug-02 Romine  Asbestos abatement $10,000 I Apr-02 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $3,534,675 I Mar-03 Securityfrransportation Bus cameras $22,500 I Jun-01 Southwest Addition $2 ,000,000 I Nov-04 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Aug-00 Southwest New roof $690,000 Oct-03 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Jan-02 Southwest Drainage I street widening __ $_250,000 Aug-03 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation 0- - $4,830 Aug-02 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation -- - $275.~ - Dec-01 -- Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation 1Addition/Renovation - Phase II $3,679,000 Jun-04 -- - Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Nov-02 Terry 1 Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Feb-01 -- Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Aug-02 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Sep-02 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 -- Dec-04 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Jun-01 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting _!74,776 Feb-01 ---+-- - Wakefield Demolition/ Asbestos Abatement - -- $200,000 - Nov-02 Washington Fire Alarm Upgrade $11,600 Oct-04 -- -- - Washington Security cameras $7,900 Jun-01 --  Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Apr-01 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Jul-01 --- Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Aug-01 - - . Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Aug-01 - Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Aug-02 Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade $8,400 Oct-04 - Western Hills ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Aug-04 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191 ,946 Aug-02 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Dec-01 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Jul-01 Williams Renovation $2 ,106,492 Mar-04 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Dec-03 -- -- - Williams Energy efficient lighting - $122,719 Jun-01 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 Feb-04 --- r Wilson Parking Expansion -- $110,000 Aug-03 - Renovation -- --- - Woodruff $246,419 Aua-02 4\ni: -m\u0026lt; (\") C: ::J: -CZ 00 \u0026gt;r-\u0026lt; O me, -\u0026lt; s \u0026gt;   ::J: ..., C: !B~ ~z z\nJJ zm m\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; ,-0 (\") C: ::J:\nJJ C) (\") ~rn ~ a, \u0026gt;c:  \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; 8~ Z\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; \u0026gt;\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; :::!\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; om z\n,:, \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;\u0026lt; n m \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: January 27, 2005 TO: FROM: Board of Directors 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 .!X.,' z )\u0026gt; z n ,\u0026gt;....\nJJ m c3 ~ (J) s )\u0026gt;   :x: -.:,c ~~ isz z\n,\n:, zm m\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; ,-0 nC :x:\nJJ Cl n \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;m  (J) ~ a, )\u0026gt; C  (J) g~ Z\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; )\u0026gt; (J) :::! (J) om z\n,, \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;S n m (J) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: January 27, 2005 To: Board of Directors From~ Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - January This is the sixty-third communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, one middle schools and three elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity 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) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology Training a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Facilitating technology upgrade in cooperation with the English Department for Yearbook and Newspaper production staff in LRSD high schools to improve access to tools needed for students and staff. a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of uts \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. Audit Report - January 2005 Page 2 of2 b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) 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. d) Developed skills test for financial positions. Implementing in coordination with Human Resources. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures 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 b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) Other a) b) c) issues. 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. Reviewing Teacher School Supply Fund Records for recommendations. Assisting in travel regulation modifications for submission to the Board. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Served as District coordinator of United Way's Day of Caring (April 17, 2004) and on planning committee for 2005. 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.\nz: .... ~ c::::c -oz 00 ?.5 me, -\u0026lt; \u0026gt;,\u0026lt; ::c -0 c:: ~~ igz z\n,:, zm m.-o\"' nc:: ::c\n,:, on ?\u0026gt; rn ~ CXl \u0026gt;c::  V, g~ z V, \u0026gt; V, ::! V, om z\n,:, enn\u0026lt; m V, DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 January 27, 2005 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 took place:  The computer replacement cycle begins this month. Over the next few weeks Windows 95 computers will be replaced at 14 schools. Approximately 900 machines will be purchased in this phase of upgrades. For the first time the District will be offering teachers at the schools being upgraded an opportunity to purchase the replaced machines for a nominal fee.  Training for teachers at Parkview in using Edline for parent access to grades began in January.  E-rate filing season opened on December 15 and closes on February 17. We are filing for telecommunications costs, switches, and telephone system maintenance. RATIONALE: To implement the LRSD Technology Plan 2003 - 2006 FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept this report. PREPARED BY: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director, Computer Information Services .!E.,l z \u0026gt;z n .:\n-\nI IJ) ,,.~\u0026lt;  :::c .., C: ~f\n~z z\n zm m!Jl r- 0 nc: :::c\n,, G) n ~rn ~ a, \u0026gt; C:  IJ) g~ ZIJl )\u0026gt;,IJ) ::!IJl om z\no IJ)\u0026lt; \u0026lt;'\u0026gt; m IJ) DATE: January 27, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 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, 2004 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 9, 2004 for EYE are consid~r,j intern teachers. PREPARED BY: Beverly Williamfo~ector of Human Resources ~ CD \u0026gt; C:  \u0026lt;J) g~ Z\u0026lt;J\u0026gt;  \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; ::! \u0026lt;J) oz m\no \u0026lt;J)~ m \u0026lt;J) Personnel Changes Page2 January 27, 2005 NAME ---- START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees Allan, Ashley Reason: Personal Allen, Sarah Reason: Accepted another position East, Pamela Reason: Accepted another position Hays, Linda Reason: Retirement Izard, Rhonda Reason: Personal McQueen, Kay Reason: Personal Moorehead, Kenneth Reason: None Given Pannell, Erin Reason: Leaving city Roland, Ronald Reason: Certification Expiration Samuels, Lori Reason : Personal Agnew, April Elementary V/ FRANKLIN Speech Pathologists/ BRADY Reading/ EARLY CHILDHOOD Learning Skills/ ACC-METRO Gifted and Talented/ DUNBAR Biology/ CENTRAL Instrumental Music/ PARKVIEW Elementary IV/ WAKEFIELD Electronics/ ACC-METRO Elementary I/ MCDERMOTT New Certified Employees Tutor/ WILSON 8-16-04 12-7-04 8-11-04 1-4-05 9-2-03 12-17-04 1-25-82 1-18-05 8-16-93 1-13-05 8-11-04 1-14-05 8-13-01 1-17-05 8-11-04 1-13-05 8-28-89 1-07-05 8-11-04 1-05-05 1-03-05 6-18 56209.00 TCH925 62-9 46572.00 SPE925 6-21 60020.00 TCH11 6-21 53213.00 TCH925 6-12 49277.00 TCH925 6-08 44655.00 TCH925 1-17 47715.00 TCH925 1-01 30040.00 TCH925 1-10 39283.00 VOC10 1-03 31195.00 TCH925 1-01 30040.00 TCH925 annual 16115.21 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 January 27, 2005 START DATE/ NAME POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE Brown, Lori Elementary V/ 1-03-05 FRANKLIN Butcher, Angee Elementary Ill/ 1-3-05 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY Smith, Donald Journalism/ 10-19-04 MCCLELLAN Smith, Tunza ESL/ 1-03-05 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE Spaulding, Robert Physics/ 12-14-04 MCCLELLAN Spears, Marsha Elementary I/ 1-3-05 CARVER Certified Promotion NONE Certified Transfer NONE SALARY CLASS 4-13 TCH925 4-18 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 4-14 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 47284.00 annual 25365.90 prorated 53061 .00 annual 29071 .73 prorated 31195.00 annual 24692.24 prorated 30040.00 annual 16428.13 prorated 48439.00 annual 26994.65 prorated 30617.00 annual 16424.74 prorated .!J,,I z \u0026gt;z C') \u0026gt;r-\no m c3 .\n.\n.o. \"' s \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\n=  C') \u0026gt;r-cO 5!!! !6 ~ z~ ~~ ~~ \"' ~ a, \u0026gt;c::  \"' 8~ ZU\u0026gt; \u0026gt;\u0026lt;n ::::!u, oz m\no \"'s C') m \"' Personnel Changes Page4 January 27, 2005 NAME POSITION / SCHOOL START DATE/ SALARY END DATE CLASS Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Employees Brewington, Kimberly Bus Driver/ 11-18-04 2-01 Reason: None Given TRANSPORTION 1-13-05 BUSDRV Buford, Kamirah Instructional Aide/ 8-11-04 33-13 Reason: Personal JEFFERSON 12-17-04 INA925 Coakley, Kevin Instructional Aide/ 11-11-04 33-03 Reason: Resigned without CHICOT 12-14-04 INA925 Notice Dedmon, Nancy Custodian/ 7-01-01 31-15 Reason: Retirement CLOVERDALE 1-07-05 CUS12 ELEMENTARY Gibbons, William Maintenance/ 11-9-01  51-10 Reason: Personal Reasons FACILITY SERVICES 12-9-04 MAINT Gregory, Regena Nurse/ 9-20-04 38-03 Reason: None Given STEPHENS 11-30-04 NURSES Hackney, Jon Maintenance/ 11-19-01 49-10 Reason: Termination-No FACILITY SERVICES 12-9-04 MAINT Appeal Pending Hubbard, Myia Instructional Aide/ 10-20-03 33-13 Reason: Personal Reasons WILSON 1-10-05 INA925 Jackson, Lamond Maintenance/ 8-9-99 40-8 Reason: Termination-No FACILITY SERVICES 12-30-04 MAINT Appeal Pending Johnson, Linda Custodian/ 1-19-04 31-03 Reason: Personal Reasons FULBRIGHT 12-22-04 CUS925 Jones, Deborah Care/ 8-30-04 1-06 Reason: None Given CARE 12-18-04 CARE Joseph, Fred Maintenance/ 6-12-89 52-20 Reason: Retirement FACILITY SERVICES 1-14-05 MAINT ANNUAL SALARY 9481.00 14732.00 10934.00 22080.00 34548.00 19020.00 32544.00 14735.00 23436.00 12085.00 7.64 per hour 47976.00 Personnel Changes Page 5 January 27, 2005 .!X.,' z \u0026gt; z START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL n \u0026gt; CLASS SALARY r- NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE\na .m., 0 .\n.a. \"' Marsh, Janice Child Nutrition/ 9-23-04 3-01 9350.00 Reason: Personal Reasons CHILD NUTRITION 1-27-05 FSH550 McDonald, Gladys Care/ 11-20-02 3-06 8.54 s x\n= Reason: None Given CARE 12-18-04 CARE per hour  n \u0026gt; r- .o.. O\"' Mercado, Maria Instructional Aide/ 4-01-04 33-17 16595.00 gz\na C) Reason: Leaving City BRADY 12-15-04 INA925 z~ ~J: ~~ Mullins, Michael Child Nutrition/ 8-23-04 42-01 20184.00 \"' Reason: None Given CHILD NUTRITION 1-04-05 AN12 Osorio, Rosa Custodian/ 11-15-01 31-01 11379.00 Reason: Health Reasons ROMINE 12-6-04 CUS925 Patterson, Gary Instructional Aide/ 2-2-04 33-15 19863.00 Reason: Health Reasons ROCKEFELLER 1-4-05 INA925 Samples, Karen Child Nutrition/ 8-26-91 3-13 9892.00 Reason: Retirement CHILD NUTRITION 1-3-05 FSH550 Scaife, James Custodian/ 11-15-04 34-03 17388.00 Reason: Resignation without FRANKLIN 11-16-04 CUS12 Notice Senter, Amelia Care/ 8-19-04 1-05 7.56 Reason: None Given CARE 12-18-04 CARE per hour Whitfield, Charles Maintenance/ 3-12-01 51-10 34548.00 Reason: Termination-No FACILITY SERVICES 12-9-04 MAINT Appeal Pending Yeargin, Julius Custodian/ 10-9-00 34-10 20796.00 Reason: Leaving City BALE 11-11-04 CUS12 New Non-Certified Employees ~ Allen, Sherion Parent Coordinator/ 12-7-04 50-7 30660.00 a, \u0026gt;c  \"' ALC AN10 annual g~ 17782.80 z \"' \u0026gt; \"' :::! \"' prorated om z::a \"' ns m \"' Personnel Changes Page 6 January 27, 2005 NAME Allmon, Shikara Baggett, Ruth Broadway, Axie Clingham, Warnetta Evans, Kim Glover, Bruce Lasker, Devon Moreland-Adams, Robbie Obi, Talisa START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE Instructional Aide/ 1-10-05 MABEL VALE ELEMENTARY Instructional Aide/ 11-29-04 CENTRAL Custodian/ 11-15-04 CENTRAL Child Nutrition/ 11-16-04 CHILD NUTRITION Instructional Aide/ 12-6-04 CHICOT Maintenance/ 12-20-04 FACILITY SERIVES Instructional Aide/ 1-3-05 CHICOT Nurse/ 11-11-04 ALC Custodian/ 12-9-04 SOUTHWEST SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 33-04 11253.00 INA925 annual 5839.39 prorated 33-09 13070.00 INA925 annual 8195.24 prorated 31-01 14532.00 CUS12 annual 8842.88 prorated 3-01 9350.00 FSH550 annual 6333.87 prorated 33-16 16109.00 INA925 annual 9665.40 prorated 49-07 29760.00 MAINT annual 15323.23 prorated 33-16 16109.00 INA925 annual 8794.64 prorated 52-06 6319.20 NURSES annual 4179.89 prorated 31-01 14532.00 CUS12 annual 7915.30 prorated Personnel Changes Page7 January 27, 2005 START DATE/ SALARY NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS Pulliam, Shareka Instructional Aide/ 1-3-05 33-04 JEFFERSON INA925 Williams, Donald Instructional Aide/ 1-3-05 33-06 WILSON INA925 Non-Certified Promotion Clark, Gerald - Promoted from Custodian to Head Custodian Collier, Richard - Promoted from Carpenter Trade to Carpenter Trade Specialist Musgrave, Jimmy - Promoted from HVAC Trade Specialist to HVAC Foreman Phelps, Stephanie - Promoted from Work Order Secretary to Warehouse Specialist Approved leave as recommended by the Superintendent Hayley, Leslie- medical leave without pay (effective 1-3-05) ANNUAL SALARY 8214.69 annual 4484.78 prorated 11946.00 annual 6521 .87 prorated .!X,,l z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt;r- ::0 m \"0 0 .::.0. \"' s x\n::: n \u0026gt;r- oO o\u0026lt;--\"' !5 ~ z~ ~~ ~~ \"' ~ CD \u0026gt;c:  \"' 8* Zf/l  Ul ~om\"' z::o UlS n m \"' DATE: January 27, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 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 .?.\", z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt; r-\n:o m c3 ~ V\u0026gt; DONATIONS School/Department Item Donor Central High School Assorted office furniture Mr. Gary Stephenson valued at approximately on behalf of State Farm $8,322.44 Insurance Company Central High School $2,000.00 cash to the Mr. Walter C. Coleman baseball team Cloverdale Middle Gift cards, valued at Bank of America School $125.00, and trophies, valued at $95.00, to be used for student rewards and teacher incentives Terry Elementary Piano valued at Ms. Karen Stein, Music School $1,500.00 Specialist at Terry Terry Elementary $958.32 cash to Mr. Robert Jones of School purchase a video the Optimist Club of camera for the Greater Little Rock media center Western Hills Side by side Mr. and Mrs. Richard C. Elementary School refrigerator valued Blaine at $200.00 DATE: Little Rock Central High School 1500 South Park Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-447-1400 Fax 501-44 7-1401 JANUARY 4, 2005 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~ :],(J,{__Cl.,l,,v SUBJECT: DONATION Gary Stephenson, on behalf of State Farm Insurance Company, 22 State Farm Drive, Monroe, Louisiana 71208, generously donated the following items to Little Rock Central High School: 20 desks, 20 file cabinets, 2 work tables, 2 bookcases, 13 conference room tables, and 72 chairs. The value of the furniture is $8,322.44. It is my recommendation that this be accepted in accordance with the donation policies of the Little Rock School District. \"-, .. r1 r. .,   ... ~ '\n_ .?.,' z \u0026gt;z ,~... :x, .m., 0 e~n s .x\n= (\") \u0026gt;,... .c_O en gz :x,G'\u0026gt; z:x,\ni::m m~ ~~ en DATE: ATTN: FROM: Little Rock Central High School 1500 South Park Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-44 7-1400 Fax 501-447-1401 12/17/2004 DARRAL PARADIS NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~ SUBJECT: DONATION Walter C. Coleman of 3100 Cole Avenue, Apt. 215, Dallas, Texas 74204, graciously donated $2,000 to our baseball team. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. December 1, 2004 To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Angela Munns, Principal RE: Donation Please accept the following donations that were given to Cloverdale Magnet Middle School. The trophies will be awarded to six grade students who participate in a \"Spelling B\". The gift cards will be given as incentives to teachers who have perfect attendance, raise student test scores, etc. Bank of America Ms. Carol Murray, Vice President Gift Cards $125.00- Trophies $95.00 Donated Subject Dividers (25) ? Total Value $220.00 !.D., z )\u0026gt; z ~.... ~ \"D 0 ~ U) s .x := (\") )\u0026gt; .... oO c... U) gz\n%le, z:x\u0026gt; ll: m m~ :!:i~ U) TERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL \u0026lt;\u0026lt;Home of the Tcny Tfrrcn\" *  (I 4) (I * (I '3- DATE: December 17. 2004 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: ~ Becky Ramsey. Principal RE: Donation Karen Stein, Music Specialist at Terry Elementary, has generously donated her piano valued at $1,500 to our school . It is my recommendation that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. r l r - - ~-1'- r.. 0.... ...'\"\" -t\u0026gt; .. \\.,, TERRY ELEMENTARY S CHOOL ccH01ne of the Terry Tigcd) * (I * (I '1- (I * (I * (I*  DATE: TO: FROM: t3f}__ RE: -- 0.':J 1-4-112 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Becky Ramsey, Principal Donation Mr. Robert Jones from the Optimist Club of Greater Little Rock, 9900 Vinson Court, Little Rock, AR, 72205, has generously d~nated $958.32 to Terry Elementary on January 4, 2005. The money was used to purchase a new video camera for the media center. It is my recommendation that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. ~ .. - r 1 ~.,.\n:...,\n. t!_, ~'J -. ' .... -- _ : ..... - - ., - WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL December 8, 2004 To: Darrel Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Scott Morgan, Principal Subject: Donation Mr. and Mrs. Richard C. Blaine have graciously donated a side by side refrigerator valued at $200.00 to the Western Hills Elementary School. It is recommended that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. ,. . '. ' 4901 Western Hills  Phone (501) 447-6900  Fax (501) 447 -6901  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 81 0 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: January 27, 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: December 2004 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 December 2004 financial reports as submitted. PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen, Manager Financial Services LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003 AND 2004 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2003/04 12/31/03 COLLECTED 2004/05 12/31/04 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 57,547,800 55,681,497 96.76% 61,436,691 61,324,530 99.82% DELINQUENT TAXES 10,100,000 8,793,799 87.07% 12,135,000 5,821,274 47.97% 40% PULLBACK 29,600,000 31,250,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 210,000 205,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 180,000 155,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 150,000 185,000 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 380,000 225,933 59.46% 485,000 75,378 15.54% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 200,000 64,666 32.33% 245,000 169,098 69.02% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 240,000 142,937 59.56% 215,000 148,349 69.00% TOTAL 98,607,800 64,908,833 65.83% 106,311,691 67,538,630 63.53% REVENUE-COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 21,000 11,594 55.21% 22,000 11 ,183 50.83% TOTAL 21,000 11,594 55.21% 22,000 11,183 50.83% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 53,226,139 24,1 93,699 45.45% 65,082,694 29,621,016 45.51% ALTERNATIVE LEARNING 1,927,250 963,624 50.00% ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 193,739 NATL SCHL LUNCH STUDENT FUNDING 6,498,240 2,953,745 45.45% PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1,141,165 1,141,165 100.00% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 8,300,000 3,373,820 40.65% 8,275,000 3,468,815 41.92% VOCATIONAL 1,400,000 521,646 37.26% 1,350,000 634,461 47.00% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,675,000 271,285 16.20% 2,100,000 470,225 22.39% EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 135,094 49.42% 5,542,510 2,593,434 46.79% TRANSPORTATION 3,875,562 1,243,841 32.09% 4,125,000 1,330,714 32.26% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,900,000 1,473,688 37.79% 4,575,000 1,659,652 36.28% ADULT EDUCATION 920,337 311,832 33.88% 934,380 306,122 32.76% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 560,545 267,486 47.72% TAP PROGRAM 285,245 142,623 50.00% 382,903 7,645 2.00% AT RISK FUNDING 360,000 193,739 53.82% 395,000 9,400 2.38% TOTAL 74,776,187 32,128,752 42.97% 102,522,882 45,160,018 44.05% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 770,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,350,000 18,519 1.37% 1,295,000 8,155 0.63% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,632,430 544,143 33.33% 1,849,008 TOTAL 3,752,430 562,662 14.99% 3,914,008 8,155 0.21% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 177,157,418 97,611,841 55.10% 212,770,581 112,717,987 52.98% REVENUE-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 24,075,790 7,040,060 29.24% 21,531,929 9,541,314 44.31% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 4,000,000 2,368,924 59.22% 4,500,000 2,441,928 54.27% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,689,351 9,316,330 27,964,934 6,032,105 21.57% TOTAL 52,765,141 18,725,314 35.49% 53,996,863 18,015,347 33.36% TOTAL REVENUE 229,922,559 116,337,155 50.60% 266,767,444 130,733,335 49.01% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003 AND 2004 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2003/04 12/31/03 EXPENDED 2004/05 12/31/04 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 100,684,982 38,826,959 38.56% 117,324,912 44,814,698 38.20% BENEFITS 26,483,772 9,621,831 36.33% 36,185,81 i 12,491,139 34.52% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,719,297 8,107,685 41.12% 20,959,918 8,195,818 39.10% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,185,459 4,165,135 50.88% 8,725,914 4,060,254 46.53% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,575,580 549,257 34.86% 2,760,600 752,520 27.26% OTHER OBJECTS 8,384,567 2,957,578 35.27% 10,770,418 450,883 4.19% DEBT SERVICE 12,098,342 4,699,176 38.84% 12,474,809 4,590,834 36.80% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 177,131,999 68,927,621 38.91% 209,202,382 75,356.147 36.02% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,056,193 7,038,023 27.01% 23,853,134 7,615,890 31.93% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 4,000,000 2,157,873 53.95% 5,007,809 1,928,649 38.51% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,689,351 8,613,259 34.89% 27,964,934 9,306,807 33.28% TOTAL 54,745,544 17,809,155 32.53% 56,825,877 18,851,346 33.17% TOT AL EXPENSES 231,877,543 86,736,m 37.41% 266,028,259 94,207,493 35.41% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (1,954,984) 29,600,377 739,184 36,525,841 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M \u0026amp; 0 3,558,580 3,558,580 4,005,957 4,005,957 OPERATING 9,026,855 9,026,855 6,531,706 6,531,706 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M \u0026amp; 0 1,578,177 4,474,738 1,176,943 3,169,958 OPERATING 9,052,274 37,711,075 10,099,905 43,893,546 TOTAL 10,630,451 42,185,813 11,276,848 47,063,505 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-04 2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 12-31-04 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 17,956.90 2,900.00 15,056.90 MCCLELLAN 77,519.02 77,519.02 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE 396.12 396.12 CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 95,872.04 0.00 0.00 2,900.00 0.00 92,972.04 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 11,586.46 80,000.00 48,838.79 8,936.88 33,810.79 NEW WORK PROJECTS 6,090,835.40 2,708,744.24 1,104,364.63 2,277,726.53 SECURITY PROJECTS 14,541.25 14,541.25 LIGHTING PROJECTS 0.00 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 7,569,593.08 618,298.54 113,711.21 6,837,583.33 RENOVATION PROJECTS 12,752,856.34 5,247,940.47 1,528,227.10 5,976,688.77 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 1,569,424.27 1,143,377.19 350,547.35 234,696.65 2,127,557.46 SUBTOTAL 28,008,836.80 1,143,377.19 80,000.00 8,974,369.39 2,989,936.47 17,267,908.13 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 445,618.31 181,104.00 626,722.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 14,773,544.18 (80,000.00) 14,693,544.18 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 5,037,437.95 390,654.49 5,428,092.44 SUBTOTAL 21 ,555,688.12 571,758.49 (80,000.00) 0.00 0.00 22,047,446.61 GRAND TOTAL ~l! liliD al!li l!li l Zl:i la:i lia 2Jll2 a,:izz ilil! a:i i :ia:i :iali ~z aMaa aili,za I PROJECT I ALLOCATIONS EXPENSE PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 12-31-04 2000-01 ADMINISTRATION 760,526.80 889,772.32 NEW WORK PROJECTS 38,788,412.86 443,467.00 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 113,930.47 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,862,548.33 2,641,482.13 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 18,922,387.50 791,385.63 RENOVATION PROJECTS 51,027,748.84 397,615.34 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 12,878,988.97 575,016.53 UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 15,987,365.15 TOTAL 143,493,792.62 5,852,669.42 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 (485,325.77) 149,597.63 114,896.16 4,589,606.29 11,671,442.11 15,993,062.06 109,609.73 27,732.73 1,832,392.06 379,661 .38 9,012.76 4,218,294.40 3,455,350.67 2,887,763.72 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 18,091,992.05 4,325,201.40 4,500,374.61 765,594.97 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 37,890,054.45 EXPENSE ---- ENCUMBERED THRU 12-31-04 --- - THRU 12-31-04 48,838.79 8,936.88 2,708,744.24 1, 104,364fil - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 618,298.54 113,711.21 5,247,940.47 1,528,227.10 350,547.35 234,696.65 -- - - 8,974,369.39 2,989,936.47 1N3111NHnorov xi S\u0026gt;IHVlll3H 9NIS01:l 11111 ENDING ALLOCATION SUBTOTAL - 12-31-04 726,716.01 33,810.79 36,510,686.33 2,277,726.53 251 ,272:-3 14,541.25 4,862,548.33 0.00 12,084,804.17 6,837,583.33 45,051,060.07 5,976,688.77 10,751,431.51 2,127,557.46 15,987,365.15 110,238,519.35 33,255,273.28 Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Food Service Activity Fund Fund Total Total Total Bond Account Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Total Deseg Plan Scholarship Total Rockefeller Scholarship Total + + i f t Purchase Date 12-30-04 12-10-04 12-16-04 12-16-04 12-16-04 12-16-04 12-16-04 12-16-04 12-30-04 12-21-04 09-06-04 07-14-04 01-30-04 08-17-04 06-10-04 08-02-04 08-02-04 09-15-04 12-17-04 12-09-04 06-10-04 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31 _,_~04 - Maturity Date TFN 03-15-05 01-14-05 02-01-05 02-15-05 03-01-05 03-15-05 04-01-05 TFN TFN 03-07-05 01-10-05 01-31-05 08-16-05 01-10-05 02-05-05 08-02-05 03-15-05 TFN 06-24-05 01-10-05 - - - Institution I nterest Rate-_ Type _,_ Principal -f---- --- -1-- - -- -+---- -------\u0026lt; 2.100% ~ 15,125,000.00 2.410% CD _ - 4 ,668,206.83 ~10% --+----C-D 5,700,000.00 Bank of A~rica _ Twin City Bank Twin City Bank Twin City Bank Twin City Bank Twin City Bank __ 2.630%- CCDD _ 11 ,000,000.00 2.670% 9,200,000.00 Twin City Bank _ Twin City Bank Bank of America - Bank of America 2.710% 2.730% 2.750% 1.970% 2.040% 1.843% CD 3,500,000.00 - - CD 3,500,000.00 CD 2,60Q,0OO.O0 55,293,2~.83 Repo 920,000.00 920,000.00_ Repo ~--:\n,235,000.00 ---+-~1,235,000.0Q_ Regions CD Metropolitan Bancorp South Twin City Bank Bank of America Twin City Bank Twin City Bank - - 1.930% -,-- CD 400,000.00 - -----:r]oo.934.31 Bank of the Ozarks Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America 1 850% CD ~ 610% - - CD ___ 2,100,2~.72 .J.1.,000,0QQ.00 - 1.670% 2.580% 3.030% 2.210% 2.040% 2.300% - Treasury Bills - CD 5,385,005.84 4,500,000.00 CD 4,500,000.00 CD Repo - 10,366,251.16 2,460,000.00 -- 41,712,436.03 Treasury Bills ,---7,,..8,....4c'-,9_ 9 _4_.0_4-1 _ 78i,994.04 1.670% _ Treasury ~s 252,468.56 252,468.56\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_595","title":"Magnet Schools and Magnet Programs Evaluation Report, 2 copies","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":["Dreyfus, Jeanne P."],"dc_date":["2005/2006"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Schools and Magnet Programs Evaluation Report, 2 copies"],"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/595"],"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\nJeanne P. Dreyfus, Ed. D., external evaluator\nLittle Rock School District Magnet Schools and Magnet Programs Evaluation Report 2005 - 2006 Jeanne P. Dreyfus Ed. D. External Evaluatorm m nri The evaluator would like to acknowledge and thank the Little Rock School Districts Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) director and staff for their generous and timely assistance in the collection of a wide array of data for this report. p p p p p p p p p p p p p pH I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MAGNET SCHOOLS AND PROGRAM EVALUATION IN IN Over the past twenty years, the Little Rock School District has established a number of full-scale magnet schools and magnet programs in several of its area schools. These schools and programs are intended to promote educational excellence and student diversity. This report summarizes research and evaluation work performed over a fifteen-month period on 17 of these entities. A two part endeavor, Part I, covered in this report, focused on a comprehensive examination of the following schools and programs: IN  Stipulation Magnet Schools (6)- Booker, Carver, Gibbs, and Williams Elementary Schools, Mann Middle School and Parkview High School IN  Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools (4) - Cloverdale and Mabelvale Middle Schools, and J.A. Fair and McClellan High Schools IN  Schools with embedded Magnet Programs (7) - King, Rockefeller, Romine and Washington Elementary Schools, Dunbar and Henderson Middle Schools, and Central High School IN Professionally recognized evaluation standards guided the creation and content of the evaluation study, the manner in which data were collected and the reporting methodology. IN IN The evaluator collected a wide array of data on stakeholders perceptions of the schools and programs, students academic achievement and the schools abilities to de-isolate minorities and attract diverse student populations. Throughout the work, there was also an over-arching goal of determining the districts, schools and communitys commitment to the magnet concept and program sustainability. IN This study generated a number of preliminary findings and areas that warrant further study. Part II of the work, which will be conducted during 2006 - 2007, will examine these areas in-depth. IN General Finding and Recommendation IN A major observation that emerged from this study was that, although the community knows the district offers a number of school choices to students and parents, there is no clearly stated, district-level magnet vision and mission statement for the non-stipulation magnet schools and embedded magnet programs. Mission and vision statements are important because they provide clarity and direction to stakeholders and guide program funding, implementation and evaluation. IN IN This finding generated a recommendation that the District decide how (and whether) it is going to utilize its already existing set of magnet schools and programs to promote student diversity and academic achievement. Creating a magnet mission/vision statement would clarify the districts intent and a centralized magnet office would provide the guidance and oversight necessary to sustain the work. IN Academic Achievement IN Part of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), the states Benchmark exams measure the degree to which students have mastered subject content standards. The goal for each student is proficiency in all requirements at each grade level. Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well prepared for the next level of school. (Arkansas Department of Education, 2005 Arkansas School Performance Report. IN2 p In almost every instance across grade and school levels, the six Stipulation Magnet Schools had higher percentages of students who were Proficient and Above in Literacy and Mathematics standards over time than other schools in the study. Students enrolled in the four Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) Schools trailed noticeably in proficiency attainment in the two subject areas, especially mathematics, but the schools have made progress in moving MSAP students out of the Below Basic category, the lowest performance level for these exams. p p The academic achievement of students enrolled in the schools with embedded magnet programs could not be tracked in Year I because the available data are not consistent and appear unreliable. It is anticipated that this problem will be solved in Year II of the study and analysis of magnet students achievement levels in the embedded magnet programs will be available in the Year II report. p p Program Perceptions Data from stakeholders provided insight into their understanding of the magnet schools and programs and their perceptions of their worth. Our data showed that a majority of those sampled believed the children liked school and that the schools were preparing the students for the future. Sampled teachers generally believed that their magnet programs were meeting the academic needs of their African-American students and that their programs were an important reason why students enrolled in their schools. Two-thirds (magnet programs) to three-quarters (stipulation magnets) of parents thought that their childrens learning needs were being met and the majority thought their children were receiving a quality education. p p p However, the data also showed that sampled parents of children in Stipulation Magnet Schools would be less likely than sampled Magnet-program parents to continue sending their children to their schools if they no longer had magnet programs or had altered programs of diminished quality. When asked to elaborate, parents offered explanations like the following: p p  No ... my assumption is that the high standards will decrease.   The magnet program is what makes us go to that school.   The school just wouldn t be the same.  II The data suggest that an expanded investigation into the communitys perceptions of the magnet schools and programs would assist the district in future decisions regarding these entities. Especially important would be inquiries into what parents would do if their magnet schools or programs were altered or eliminated. p Funding p The wide variation in magnet funding of embedded Magnet Programs and the MSAP Schools suggests that the data do not represent actual program expenditures. Some of the 17 schools in the evaluation do not have any money budgeted for their magnet programs. While others, who were depending on grant money, found themselves without the funding they needed when their grants expired. For these reasons, the evaluator suggests that magnet programs with no magnet funding stream be fully funded if their magnet programs have committed leadership and faculties and viable program infrastructures. For those magnet programs with outside funding that has expired, the district should consider planning, funding, and monitoring the future of these magnet programs so that the large investment in place in these schools is not lost. p p p Finally, the district should revisit those programs not independently functioning as magnet programs. A decision should be made to either phase them out or integrate them into other aspects of the schools curricula with funding earmarked to cover the transitions costs needed to complete this process. p p p 1II 3 II TABLE OF CONTENTS II Page II Introduction 1 I. Evaluation Study Design 2 II  Data Availability and Discrepancies (Recommendation - Rec., p. 7) 7 II II. Magnet Schools and Magnet Program Descriptions 8 II  Introduction, Evaluation Questions  Mission Statements, Organizational Chart {Rec., p. 10)  Nature of the Magnet Programs - Descriptions 9 9 11 II  Stipulation Magnet Schools  Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools  Embedded Magnet Programs 11 14 18 II II  Program Implementation Levels  Minority Group Isolation  Opportunities to Meet State/District Content Standards  Equitable Program Access  Special Situations - Hall and Rockefeller (Rec., p. 31) 20 22 25 27 29 II III. Academic Achievement - Combined Populations 32 II II  Introduction  Stipulation Magnet Schools  Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools  High Schools  Achievement Comparisons Across School Clusters 33 34 35 36 38 II IIIA. Academic Achievement - African-American Students 41 II  Stipulation Magnet Schools  Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools  Areas of Progress  Achievement Gap 42 43 44 45 II II II II4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page IV. Program Perceptions 48  M H  Introduction, Evaluation Question  Parents (Rec., p. 54)  Students  Teachers  School Program/Administrative Leaders 49 49 54 55 59 HH V. Level of Interest, Support and Involvement 60  Evaluation Question, Volunteer Hours, Outreach Activities  Partnerships, Transportation and Zone Information 61 62 H VI. Program Expenditures (Rec., p. 70) 64 H VII. Other Magnet School and Program Information and Outcomes 71  Student Enrollment  Teacher Education Levels  Magnet Class Requirements  Access Participation and Progress 72 73 75 76 M  Mobility  Advanced Placement Enrollment  Graduation Rates  Achievement and the Economically Disadvantaged 78 VIII. Sustainability Work (Rec., p. 82) 79 IX. Summary - Key Findings and Recommendations 83 Appendix\nParent, Student and Principal Surveys List of Graphs 1. Comparison of Racial/Ethnic Distributions  Stipulation Magnet Schools  MSAP Schools 22 23 H TABLE OF CONTENTS nn M 5 II Page II 2. Student Achievement - Combined Population II II  Stipulation Magnet School  Magnet School Assistance Program Schools  High School  High School  Comparisons Across School Clusters 34 35 36 37 38 3. Student Achievement - African-American Students II II  Stipulation Magnet Schools  Magnet School Assistance Program Schools  Areas of Progress - African American - Below Basic  Achievement Gap - Elementary Schools Achievement 42 43 44 45+ II 4. Program Perceptions II II  Parents Ability to Describe Magnet Programs  Importance of Magnet Program  Enrollment Plans if Magnet Discontinued  Students Program Perceptions  Teachers Program Perceptions  Teachers Magnet Staff Development 51 52 53 54 56+ 58 II 5. Funding II n II  Stipulated Magnet Schools - Funding by Source  Stipulated Magnet Schools - Per-pupil Expenditures 66  Stipulated Magnet Schools - Specialists and Classroom Certified Staff  Stipulated Magnet Schools - Magnet Expenditures  MSAP Per-pupil Expenditures  Magnet Programs - Per-pupil Expenditures - Whole Pop.  MSAP and Magnet Programs Expenditures  Expenditures per Square Foot 66 67 67 68 68 69 70 II 6. Other Magnet Schools and Program Information and Outcomes II II  Student Enrollment  Teacher Education Levels  Mobility Rates  Graduation Rates  Economically Disadvantaged 73+ 73+ 76 77 78 II Little Rock School District II6 Magnet Schools and Magnet Programs Evaluation Report 2005-2006 Introduction Over the past twenty years, the Little Rock School District has established a number of full-scale magnet schools and embedded a variety of magnet programs in several of its area schools. These schools and programs follow a long standing tradition of promoting educational excellence and student diversity. This report summarizes research and evaluation work performed over a fifteen-month period on 18 of these entities in the Little Rock School District. A two part endeavor, Part I, summarized here, focused on a comprehensive examination of the schools and programs. The data that the evaluator collected and analyzed yielded a number of preliminary findings and underscored areas of interest that warrant further study. Part 11 of the work, which will be conducted during 2006 - 2007, will examine these areas in-depth. The current narrative describes the magnet schools and programs, documents their effectiveness, and offers recommendations based on preliminary evaluation findings. For reporting purposes, it divides the schools and programs into three clusters - Stipulation Magnet Schools, Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) Schools, and (embedded) Magnet programs. Each of these clusters has common characteristics and structures which will be described and reviewed at length in the sections that follow. The report is organized into nine sections that examine the following topics:  Section I: Evaluation Study Design.  Section II: Magnet Schools and Magnet Program Descriptions  Section III: Academic Achievement - Combined Populations  Stipulation Magnet Schools  Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools  Embedded Magnet Programs  Section IIIA: Academic Achievement - African-American Students Section IV: Section V: Section VI\nSection VII: Program Perceptions - Parents, Students, Teachers and Administrators Level of Interest, Support and Involvement Program Expenditures Other Magnet School and Program Information and Outcomes  Student Enrollment  Teacher Education Levels  Magnet Class Requirements and Magnet Seals  Mobility  Advanced Placement Enrollment  Graduation Rates  Achievement and the Economically Disadvantaged  Section VIII: Sustainability Work  Section EX\nSummary - Key Findings and Recommendations In addition to the summary of key findings and recommendations presented in Section IX, section findings and recommendations can be found throughout the body of the report n mm I 7 IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN SECTION I: EVALUATION STUDY DESIGN8 Section I: Evaluation Study Design  The evaluation study was designed to answer a number of questions about student achievement, opportunities for standards-based learning, the de-isolation of African-American students, and levels of magnet support and funding. H Inquiries into these four areas were supplemented by additional questions about: H  the nature of magnet programs and their implementation levels,  program differences, if any, across racial groups,  program perceptions, and  efforts to support and sustain core program components Each section of the report begins with an introduction and the evaluation question or questions addressed in the section. A list of the evaluation questions can also be found in the appendices at the back. The goal of the design was to provide accurate documentation of the magnet schools and programs and an evaluation study that is informative, useful, feasible and considerate of its participants. Professionally recognized evaluation standards guided the creation and content of the design, the manner in which data were collected and the reporting methodology. Study Participants, The evaluator collected a wide array of data across program participants, magnet schools and magnet programs to obtain multiple perspectives on the evaluation questions. An effort was made to identify representative samples and collect data from participants in a timely and efficient manner and to stay within budget. Although every school was not represented across all data collection activities, the evaluator was able to solicit input from 1324 people who had either impacted or been impacted by the schools and programs under study. One of the proposed goals in Year II will be to continue data collection across these groups and to add additional representation that would widen our understanding of the schools and programs. The chart below provides basic details of study participants. Magnet Cluster Stipulation Magnet Schools (6) MSAP Schools (4) Schools w/ Magnet Programs (7) Other Total Study Participants Magnet Schools and Magnet Program Evaluation 2005-2006 No. of Schools Teachers Principals District/ Magnet Leaders Parents Students Class Obs. Survey 6 4 7 18 266 152 230 648 6 4 8 18 4 1 5 10 114 140 254 51 36 51 144 283 111 394 HnM II 9 II II II Data Collection Activities. The research study centered around six data collection activities: (1) school and classroom observations, (2) review and analysis of school report cards, data and standardized test results, (3) collection and review of historical documents related to desegregation and magnet school issues, (4) the administration of student, teacher, parent and principal surveys, (5) district, school and magnet leadership Interviews, and (6) collection and review of student work. These activities and the data collection methods utilized are summarized below. II Data Collection Activities Magnet Schools and Magnet Program Evaluation 2005-2006 II II II II II Activity Observations Site Visits Surveying Review Data/ Documents Interviews Focus Groups (field tested) District Level 16 57 16 School Level Principals/Magnet Coordinators 68 16 54 38 Classroom Level Teachers/Students 144 648/394 119 54/103' 4 5 teachers/19 students Parent 146 108 Other 2 3 6 2 8 II II 1, Site Visits. The evaluator conducted 68 site visits over 38 days across the 18 schools under study. The objectives of the initial visits were to establish contact with the principals and/or the magnet coordinators, share the evaluation goals and data collection plans, answer questions, learn about the school and its program, and do a thorough school walk-through of each school. During subsequent visits, the evaluator had in-depth conversations with principals and magnet leaders about their program challenges and successes. II II These site visits were essential for a number of reasons. They allowed the evaluator to observe the schools culture and climate, the number and types of student work displays in the hallways, school projects such as student gardens, and the number of students transported by buses to and from schools. The visits also provided opportunities to talk formally and informally with teachers, parents and students about their work and their programs. II II During the year, the evaluator also attended a number of school activities such as an evening music performance by students for their families, a faculty meeting. Open House, Principal Leadership Trainings, the Magnet Fair, and the High School Academic Signing Day ceremony at the Clinton Library. II lA. Classroom Observations. During her visits to the schools, the evaluator conducted 122 classroom observations. Initially, these were short five minutes classroom visits. As teachers became comfortable with an observer, the time spent in the classrooms stretched to 30-45 minutes. The evaluator focused on two areas. The first was the classroom learning environment - its organization (large/small student groupings) II ' The evaluator conducted informal, but substantive, interviews with teachers and students about their work. III 10 and teacher-student roles in the learning process. The second was lesson content, whether it was standards-based and had the magnet theme Integrated into what or how the students were learning. 2. Review of School Data and Standardized Test Results. To learn more about the students who attended these schools and programs, their behavior (discipline referral, suspensions), commitment to school (attendance) and academic achievement, the evaluator reviewed a wide variety of standardized-test results and other data. The Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District, 2005, Draft and the School Report Cards were especially valuable. Some examples of additional data the evaluator reviewed follow:  November 2005 Construction Report  Bond Projects  Little Rock School District Detailed Budget, 2005-2006,2003-2004, 2002-2003.  Magnet School Assistance Program Grant Proposal, December 2000  Enrollment Information - Student Choices  Little Rock School District Web Page  Magnet Applications Received During Initial Registration - Non-Black Applicants, First Choice. Entry Level Grade - 2002-2003 through 2006-2007  A History of the Little Rock School District  Little Rock School District, Pre-Kindergarten - Grade 12, Month-by-Month Reading \u0026amp; Mathematics, Curriculum Overview  Little Rock School District Efficiency Matrix, 03/24/06  The Little Rock School District. On the Path of Progress. December, 2005  School Summaries (18), Little Rock School District Web Page 3. Review of Historical Documents. The evaluator also found it helpful to review some of the court cases that impacted LRSDs policies and schools over the years. Some of those reviewed were\n Woods, H., \u0026amp; Deere, B. (1991). Reflections on the Little Rock School Case. Arkansas Law Review, 44(4).  Little Rock School District, Plaintiff V Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. Defendants, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et all. Intervenors. Stipulation for Recommendations Regarding Magnet Schools. 1987  Little Rock School District, Plaintiff V Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. Defendants. Order. 1987  Little Rock School District, Plaintiff V Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. Defendants. Joint Motion. February 14, 1992  Little Rock School District, Plaintiff V Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al. Defendants. Memorandum Brief. February 14, 1992  Little Rock School District, Plaintiff V Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. Defendants. Order. March 5 , 1992.  Little Rock School District, Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. January 16, 1998  Little Rock School District, Plaintiff V Pulaski County Special School District, No. 1, et al. Defendants, Memorandum Opinion. June 30, 2004. 4. Surveys. The evaluator surveyed a number of stakeholders to learn what those closely involved with the magnet schools and programs thought of them, how much they understood their purpose, and what value they placed on them. The surveys provided information about respondents program knowledge and attitudes and insight into whether stakeholders, such as parents, would continue to enroll their children in a magnet program if it was altered or diminished. Aligned with the content of the evaluation questions, the surveys contained closed-ended (fixed answers) and open-ended questions or writing prompts. The closed-ended questions were more structured and confining, but easier to tally and report. The open-ended I n II 11 II questions elicited lengthy input which was harder to categorize and code, but provided greater depth of content. A brief summary of each survey type follows. II II II II Teacher Survey. Teachers shared their perspectives on the adequacy of their magnet-oriented professional development, how thoroughly they understood their program objectives and if they thought their magnet program was meeting the academic needs of their African-American students. In addition, they answered survey questions on whether the school/program was providing all students with a quality education and if they believed that the magnet program was an important reason why students applied to their schools. The survey contained 17 closed-ended and open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions contained statements such as, / believe that our magnet classes and curricula motivate students to leani . Teachers were provided with six choices - Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree - and were asked to choose the one that most closely reflected their beliefs. Open-ended questions were similar to the following, What, if anything, has promoted/impeded full implementation of your magnet program?\". II II Parent Survey. This 15-question parent survey also contained closed-ended and open-ended questions. It asked parents to share their views about whether their children were receiving a quality education, if their childrens learning needs were being met and if the program was preparing the children for the future. In addition, the survey asked parents to describe their childs magnet program, whether it was important that the school had a magnet program, why they enrolled their child, and would they continue to send their child to the school if it no longer had a magnet program. II II Student Survey. Learning about students attitudes towards school and their motivation to achieve was also considered valuable. Adapting work done in the 199Os by Dr. Deborah Stipek (UCLA) and Dr. Heidi Gralinski (UCLA/Harvard University), the evaluator compiled a brief student attitude survey which asked students their views of their classroom environment, use of cognitive approaches that influenced their motivation to learn and their goal orientation. Students provided data on whether they liked school, if they learned in many different ways and if they wanted to learn as much as possible in their magnet classes. II Principal. The principals survey asked respondents for input in five areas - magnet demographics and and activities, what hindered and helped full program implementation, and school level marketing and recruitment activities. Examples of some of the questions or requests were: II II II  Unrelated to expenditures, what are two important core components of your magnet program ? Please explain.  What, if anything, has promoted/impeded full implementation of your magnet program?  Aside from the Magnet Fair, describe two ways you market your program and recruit magnet students..  How many buses deliver magnet students to your school daily?  Besides your attendance zone, how many other zones does your magnet student population represent? II II II II 5. Interviews. Both formal and informal interviews were important data collection activities for this evaluation. The evaluator interviewed all of the magnet principals, the MSAP Program Director and some site-based magnet coordinators and district leaders. Interviews tended to focus on program descriptions, changes that had occurred over time and a history of the challenges and accomplishments that the interviewees had encountered. There were three open-ended interview questions that inquired into (1) program responsibilities and activities, (2) implementation problems and successes experienced and (3) perceived outcomes. Typical questions were, Please, tell me about your program., What are some of your challenges?, What do you see as the main purpose or purposes of the program?, etc. Informal interviews such as talking with a teacher about a project her students were doing, sharing lunch with a II12 n school principal or talking with parents before a dinner honoring school volunteers provided additional input on aspects of the magnet programs and peoples perceptions of their effectiveness. H 6. Review of Student Work. During each school visit, the evaluator reviewed student work samples. The reviews provided answers to two questions: Were student work samples standards-basedproducts and to what extent was the schools magnet theme(s) integrated into student learning and instruction. H Bl Data Availability, Data Discrepancies and Data Analysis Bl Data Availability. A number of district and school site people generously provided data and assistance during the evaluation. There were instances, however, when the evaluator received contradictory sets of data on the same subject or received perplexing data. Most of the time, the person who sent the information satisfactorily explained the problem. When that did not happen, the evaluator, with the help of the Planning, Research and Evaluation staff, verified which data were accurate and which could not be used. Bl Data Discrepancies. Valid data are an absolute necessity for accurate reporting. In the case of magnet enrollment numbers, there are discrepancies in some of the data that were collected for this report. Most occurred with magnet programs that were embedded within the schools under study. The number of tagged magnet students within each school did not always reflect the magnet format of that school. If it was a magnet school format, then all students should have been tagged magnet students\nif it was an embedded magnet program, then only students in that program should have been tagged as magnet students. Bl Bi Bl In addition to the above discrepancies, some data sets the evaluator received from different district departments contradicted one another. This made it difficult to know which data were accurate or if discrepancies were the result of different ways a department organized the data or the result of different data collection schedules or requirements. In the case of the magnet programs and achievement outcomes, until there is a consensus regarding how many magnet students are enrolled in each of the embedded magnet programs and schools, the evaluator cannot track Benchmark achievement for that cohort of students. Bl Bl Data Analysis. The evaluator collected and analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from a variety of sources for the report. Descriptive statistics - measures of central tendency, frequency distributions, etc. - were deemed most appropriate for the quantitative data\nand, for these, graphs and charts were used to display findings. For the qualitative data  interviews, observations and open-ended survey input  the evaluator interpreted the data and organized the information into coherent categories, identifying themes and patterns. During interpretation, consistencies and differences were noted and any connections and relationships between questions and/or the answers across different groups were charted. Key findings were then presented in narrative form with accompanying charts and graphs. Bl Bl Bl Summary. In the end, the report uses multiple and varied data sets to generate descriptions and analyses of the Districts magnet school and programs. Although, at times, data sets spanned differing numbers of years, all provided longitudinal lenses into the magnet effort. The evaluator believes that the sum of all of the areas examined produced rich descriptions of magnet practices, perceptions and outcomes. Bl Bl Recommendation Create an accurate, centralized database for the Magnet Schools and Programs. Bl Bl Bl13 IN IN IN IN IN SECTION 11: MAGNET SCHOOLS AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN Section II: Magnet Schools and Program Descriptions IN IN14 Section II describes the magnet schools and programs studied in this evaluation and summarizes the data collected to answer four evaluation questions pertinent to this task. The questions are\nI. What is the nature and implementation level of the magnet programs at each of the 18 Magnet Schools and Specialty Magnet Programs being evaluated? 2. Are the Stipulation Magnet Schools and the MSAP Schools, in particular, continuing to reduce, eliminate or prevent minority group isolation within their schools? 3. Are all of the Magnet Schools and Programs providing students with the opportunity to meet State and/or District content and performance standards? 4. Are their any program participation differences between minority and non-minority groups within the 18 Schools and Programs? Introduction. In the Little Rock School District, parents who wish to enroll their children in a magnet program have a number of choices from which to choose. This section of the report will examine 16 of the magnet schools and program choices at length and review the remaining two programs as special situations. Magnet Schools and Programs LRSD offers its parents a number of educational choices. Full-scale magnet schools and schools with embedded magnet programs are among the most popular. Each school and program is unique, differing in types of themes, magnitude of implementation, school level, and funding. The evaluator examined 18 of the magnet schools and programs  six Stipulation Magnet Schools, four Magnet Schools Assistance Program full-scale Magnet Schools (MSAP) and seven Magnet Programs embedded in the school curricula of seven area schools. The Stipulation Magnet Schools had their genesis in the Little Rock School District, Plaintijf, vs. Pulaski Count Special School District No. 1, et al. Defendants, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. Intervenors court agreement rendered in 1986. The agreement stipulated that six schools would be converted to full-scale magnet schools and would open their doors as such in the 1987-1988 school year. In 2001, the district converted four existing secondary schools into Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools after receiving a three-year, $7,056,075, MSAP grant from the U.S. Department of Education. The schools opened their doors as full-scale Magnets in 2001-2002. The district created the remaining seven school embedded magnet programs at different times over the last 18 years. The magnet schools and program.s offer a variety of specialized curriculum magnet programs. Magnet leaders selected themes that they hoped would be relevant and engaging and promote academic excellence and student diversity. Mission Statements. Although several magnet schools and embedded magnet programs have mission and/or vision statements of their own, at the district level, there is no similar statements for these entities. The LRSD offers parents and students multiple ways to learn about the schools and programs and how to apply for them, but nothing appears to be centrally available that clearly articulates the special mission of magnets or their goals and visions for the future. Strategic Plan. Mission and vision statements fall under the larger concept of strategic plans. In the document, On the Path of Progress, the district ha.s stated six guiding principles, each with related goals, II 15 II II and incorporated into it the core beliefs of an earlier LRSD Strategic Plan. The document provides guidance on the districts educational expectations and accountability plans. These broad expectations are helpful, but require magnet stakeholders to extract from them whatever they believe applies to their magnet programs. This could lead to multiple interpretations of the purpose the programs serve in the district and the degree to which they should be implemented and evaluated. II II Organizational Chart and Oversight. The district also has an organizational chart which displays the way work is distributed in the Little Rock School District and its reporting relationships. Nothing in the chart indicates how the magnet schools and programs fit in the organizational structure. This makes it difficult for the community and magnet stakeholders to gauge the weight the district gives these entities and to know who is responsible for overseeing and evaluating magnet programs and their outcomes. II II II Some magnet oversight duties fall under the jurisdictions of the Associate Superintendent for Elementary Schools and the Associate Superintendent for Secondary Schools. (The Magnet Review Committee, an outside entity, has exercised oversight for the six Stipulation Magnet Schools since their inception.) Other than general supervision, the evaluator is unaware of any centralized policies (although some procedures are in place) for how magnet programs are chosen, how new programs fit into the larger magnet network, and the extent to which the district periodically reviews and evaluates the MSAP Schools and embedded Magnet Programs to ensure long-term quality and sustainability. II II Summary. Parent access to comprehensive information on the magnet schools and programs plays an important role in determining whether the programs achieve one of their major magnet goals - student diversity. The more knowledgeable parents are, the more they might consider enrolling their children in a magnet program. To that end, the district should consider creating a document that articulates the programs mission and vision and a strategic plan that specifies governing principles and goals. The district might also consider creating a centralized Magnet Office and Director responsible for all of the non-stipulation magnet schools and embedded magnet programs. II Recommendations II 1. Create district-level Mission and Vision Statements and a Strategic Plan for the non-Stipulation Magnet Schools and embedded Magnet Programs. II 2. Create a district level Magnet Director who is responsible for the non-Stipulation Magnet Schools and embedded Magnet Programs. II II II II Nature and Implementation Levels of the Magnet Programs II II16 Several of the questions the evaluation sought to answer focused on understanding what the magnet schools and programs were about. This section of the report looks at the nature and implementation levels of the schools and programs, the attributes that characterize each and answers the following question.  B Evaluation Question 1: What is the nature and implementation level of the magnet programs at each of the 18 Magnet Schools and Specialty Magnet Programs being evaluated? B Nature of the Magnet Programs Work in Year I began with learning about the magnet schools and programs and building a detailed profile of each. These profiles contain basic information on the magnets curriculum theme(s), instructional program(s), and student populations. The report organizes the information under three school clusters - Stipulation Magnet Schools, MSAP Magnet Schools and Schools with embedded Magnet Programs. B Stipulation Magnet Schools Background. The evaluator reviewed six Stipulation Magnet Schools and their programs. Converted to full-scaled magnet in the late 1980s as part of the federal court agreement described earlier, the six schools set out to assist the district in achieving its desegregation goals through the creation of strong and appealing instructional themes that would promote diversity in the schools. The chart below lists the schools, their magnet strands and basic student population information. B Stipulation Magnet Schools and Themes - 2004-2005 School Magnet School Theme African-American Students Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch Students(SES Indicator^) Elementary Schools Booker Carver Gihbs Williams Middle School Mann Arts Magnet Basic Skills/Math-Science International Studies/ Foreign Languages Traditional Magnet Arts and Science 53% 52% 53% 52% 52% 63% 53.% 44% 34% 37% B High School Parkview Arts and Science 51% 22% B Data Source: School Report Card  2005 A brief description of each magnet school follows. 2 B SES = Social Economic Status IndicatorII 17 II IN IN Booker Arts Magnet School. Booker Arts Magnet School offers it 607 students an educational learning environment which couples learning, experiencing and performing the fine arts with the study of a standards-based language arts, mathematics, science and social studies curriculum. Booker Arts Magnet has a special focus on strengthening students reading abilities through the Reading Recovery, ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas), Effective Literacy and Accelerated Reader programs. (Parent Letter, March 22, 2005, p. 1.) Its mission is to educate all students to the highest levels of academic performance, while developing divergent thinking and creativity, and fostering positive growth in social behaviors through integration of the curriculum and the fine arts. (Parent Student Handbook. Booker Arts Magnet School Mission Statement. 2005-2006, p. 4) IN IN IN Carvers Math-Science Elementary Magnet School. Carvers Math-Science Magnet School program offers 533 Kindergarten through 5\" grade students a full-range curriculum, with a focus on Science and Math. Reading is also a high priority. The Arkansas Comprehensive Literacy Model leads instruction, complete with a Literacy coach and two reading Recovery teachers. Carver Magnet also offers academic enrichment and each day Carver students attend at least one of ten specialty classes taught by certified specialty teachers in Art, Music, Math lab. Computer Lab, Science Lab, Gifted and Talented, Young Astronauts, Literacy/Research Science and others. (School Home Page, Internet, 05-06) IN IN IN IN Gibbs International Studies and Foreign Languages Magnet School. With a student population of 297 students, Gibbs is the smallest of the K-5 elementary magnet schools in this study. The magnet program at Gibbs specializes in International Studies and Foreign Languages and integrates the strands across all subjects. The goal is to challenge children to achieve high academic standards as they become good citizens of the world. The underlying philosophy of the program is a belief that people and cultures are more alike than different. Students at Gibbs study the family life, beliefs and economic systems of different cultures and learn about the education systems, social controls, technology levels and basic needs of their societies. In geography, they study a variety of simple and complex subjects such as place, location, regional migrations and man/land interaction. Each year, the school chooses an over-arching theme such as Leadership which is incorporated across the childrens studies and is tied to their magnet strands. IN IN Williams Traditional Magnet School. Williams Traditional Magnet Elementary School offers its 460 K-5 students a comprehensive basic skills education in a structured, child-centered, and safe environment. The oldest magnet program in the area, the schools goals are to develop student achievement to the highest level, reduce any achievement gaps that exist between its minorities and non-minority students and provide equitable access to academic and co-curricular activities. The school promotes responsible citizenship, critical thinking and lifelong learning. IN IN Williams Magnet School enhances its standards-based core curriculum program with additional offerings such as a Compass Learning Computer Lab, Accelerated Reader and Math programs. Junior Achievement, Certified P.E., Art and Music Programs, a Gifted/Talented program. Peer Tutors/Ambassadors, and Junior Great Books. (Williams Traditional Magnet Schools, A Choice for Excellence\", Brochure, June, 2004) The school also has a number of extracurricular activities and events that help develop students skills and abilities and a strong parent/community involvement program IN IN IN Horace Mann Arts and Science Magnet Middle School. In addition to a regular middle school curriculum, Mann Magnet Middle school offers its 850 students specialty magnet programs in the arts and sciences. Students whose area of concentration is the arts may select from Art, Band, Choir, Dance and Orchestra, III, and III, Drama and Theatre classes. Art students regularly perform in school and community events. Science magnet students may enroll in Pre-AP or regular Science and Lab Sciences 6, 7 and 8. The magnet students also visit the Coleman Crystal Mines, Huntsville Space Camp, and the Mid-America Science Museum and participate in the annual Science Fair. IN18 Parkview Arts and Science Magnet High School. A Stipulation Magnet High School, Parkview is currently serving 1129 students and offers them a standard academic curriculum and two magnet programs that specialize in the visual and performing arts (68 classes) and the sciences (18 classes). A number of Parkviews teachers also integrate the arts into their students learning and instruction. All students meet state standard graduation requirements while choosing from a wide range of course electives. Students enrolled in the Fine Arts Program select a visual or performing arts emphasis. If art students selects music as their area of emphasis, they may choose from the following classes: Brass Tech, Woodwind Tech, and Percussion Tech\nConcert Band, Beginning Orchestra, Orchestra I, Intermediate Orchestra, Advanced Orchestra, Symphonic Orchestra, Jazz History, Jazz Ensemble, Music Theory/History I, Music Theory II, III, and IV (AP), Music Technology, Composition, and Conducting. The Science Magnet Program combines high tech specialty science courses with a magnet curriculum that prepares students for an undergraduate, pre-professional, or technical major in medicine and health. (School Brochure, 2005-2006). p p p p p p p R Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools (MSAP) RII 19 II II Background. With the award of a federally-funded Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) grant in 2001, the Little Rock School District converted four secondary schools in the Southwest quadrant of the city into full-scale magnet schools - J.A. Fair and McClellan High Schools\nCloverdale and Mabelvale Middle Schools. II II Although there was a mix of Caucasian and African-American families living in Southwest Little Rock at the time, the majority of students attending the four schools were African-Americans. By converting the schools to whole-school magnets with unique programs, the district hoped to attract the area's Caucasian students, many of whom were being home-schooled or were enrolled in private or county schools. The chart below provides information on African-American enrollment and the percent of students on Free/Reduced Lunch, a social-economic indicator. If there are noticeable changes in the data, the area is shaded. II Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools - 2003-2005^ II School Percent of African-American II Middle Schools 2003 Students 2004 2005 Cloverdale 86% 84% 82% II II II II II II II II II Mabelvale High Schools J. A. Fair McClellan 76% 75% 81% 79% 93% 81% 93% 85% 92% Percent of Free/Reduced Lunch Students (SES Indicator) 2003 78% 71% 38% 56% 2004 2005 73% 70% 45% 54% 86% 75% 54% 56% Magnet Schools Assistance Programs have several goals. They seek to promote minority de-isolation in schools, encourage systemic school reform, facilitate opportunities for students to meet state content and performance standards, expedite implementation of innovative educational strategies and encourage extensive career education. The federal grant award of $7,056,075 allowed the district to convert the four Southwest schools to full- scale MSAP Magnet schools. The U.S. Department of Education distributed the money over a three year period and the district portioned out money to the four schools according to the size of the school and the needs of the magnet programs. At the end of the time, not all of the money had been spent so the district requested and received a 4'*' year extension of the work. All of the schools had multiple magnet themes/strands, with the middle schools strands duplicating the themes of their high school counterparts. The display below provides details. School Magnet School Theme School Magnet School Theme II 3 School year 2004-2005 was the fourth and last year of MSAP funding for these four schools. II20 Middle Schools High Schools Cloverdale Engineering, Multimedia and Economics McClellan Engineering, Multimedia and Business Finance Mabelvale Medical Studies, Environmental Science and Information Technology J.A. Fair Environmental Science, Information Science and Systems EiVHirinB and Medical Science School Policies. MSAP schools accepted students of all ability levels and required them to complete the general course work mandated by the district and state as well as choose a specialty in one of their schools magnet strands. Students who enrolled in MSAP schools learned about the magnet strands in required introductory courses during their first year. At the end of Year I, they were asked to select one magnet strand in which to specialize. Upon graduation from Middle School, they could enroll in an MSAP High School which offered studies in their area of specialization. For example, Environmental Science magnet students at Mabelvale Middle School who studied ecosystems, global ecology and environmental practices could move into the more advanced J.A. Fair Environmental Science High School program where they could continue their studies and also participate in an internship in their field.  Of the $7,056,075, about 35%, or two million dollars was earmarked to build science and/or technology labs and secure the equipment and supplies needed to operate them. Cloverdale Magnet Middle School, for example, spent approximately $ 200,000 to set up three labs to support its Mulit-Media, Engineering and Economics magnet themes. These labs were equipped with tables and chairs, laptop and desktop computers, monitors, printers, digital cameras, palm pilots, VCRs, multi-media projectors, smart boards, software, books, materials, etc.  The MSAP budget also allotted as much as $120,000 per school for magnet-related professional development. Some of it supported teacher training in magnet class content such as medical investigations, graphic design, multi-media, environmental science. Other money was dedicated to training in innovative instructional methods such as Project Based Learning, Scientific Inquiry, Thematic Teaching and Inquiry and Curriculum Mapping. Using information found in the schools brochures and on the district website, each school is briefly described below. jl Cloverdale Magnet Middle Level Academy. Established in 1956 as an area school, Cloverdale Magnet Middle School currently offers its 636 students three magnet areas of study - Economic, Engineering and Multimedia. Funded in 2001-2002 through a federally funded Magnet Schools Assistance Program grant, the programs provide students with hands-on learning experiences in three state-of-the-art labs. Students study banking and finance, develop entrepreneurial skills, study graphic design and plan and implement desktop publishing projects. l! Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. Located in Southwest Little Rock, in 2005-2006, Mabelvale provided its 613 6'*', 7* and 8* grade magnet students with a variety of educational programs. Recently completing its fourth year as a Magnet School, Mablevale used its federally funded MSAP grant to create three specialty magnet programs - Environment Science, Medical Studies, and Information Communications Technology. Magnet leaders at the school believe that these programs are not only offering students relevant and engaging learning opportunities, but are preparing them to enter the workforce of tomorrow. H nI 21 II IN Mabelvale uses a block schedule rather than a traditional class schedule. Over a two day period, for example, students take eight classes, four each day for approximately an hour and a half. The longer class periods allow students time to work on magnet projects and study subjects in depth. The school also organizes students in academic teams that work with the same core subject teachers. This creates a more intimate and individualized learning environment for Mabelvale magnet students. IN IN IN IN J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School. J. A. Fair offers it student body of 1169 students a three-strand magnet program. In addition to the magnet requirements, students complete the state mandated core curriculum. During their freshman year students learn about the magnet strands through two introductory courses. After completing the courses, students must decide which magnet specialization they will follow: Environmental Science, Information Science and Systems Engineering or Medical Science. If they select Environmental Science, they will study problems that affect the health of the earth and work outside and in the Environmental lab. If students choose Information Science and Systems Engineering, they will learn about networks and computer technology and the importance of circuits and switches, microprocessors, fundamentals of networking and technological trends.. (J.A. Fair School Brochure, 2005, p. 5) Students who focus on Medical Science will be actively engaged in hands-on activities in an on-campus interactive Medical Sciences Lab as well as visit local health facilities and laboratories. (Ibid., p. 5j IN IN IN McClellan Magnet High School. With its current enrollment of 864 students, McClellan Magnet High School offers its students three magnet academies - Business Finance, Engineering, and Multimedia. In addition, to assist the transition from middle to senior high school, all freshman become part of the Freshman Academy and have their classes in a school wing of their own. Students in the Business Finance Academy study banking, stocks and bonds, and financial planning. Those in the Engineering Academy participate in the Project Lead the Way program which challenges students to solve a variety of engineering problems using state-of-the art computer labs and specialized engineering equipment and software. The Multimedia students work on creative assignments using sophisticated computer software to help them design and create commercial grade publications and websites. IN MSAP Schools  Impediments to Program Implementation IN IN Interviews with magnet leaders and teachers made it clear that the districts bond-funded school construction projects negatively impacted the start of all but one of the MSAP programs. Since all of the magnet themes utilized laboratories as their base, timely construction of the schools labs was essential for full program implementation. When it was apparent that some labs would not be ready until late in the second or even the third and last year of the grant funded programs, schools had to consider spending money on temporary quarters, thus diluting their funding, or wait until construction was completed. The schools opted to wait. IN IN The construction of J.A. Fairs Magnet Environmental Science Lab and Magnet Medical Science Lab is a good example of the problems the magnets faced. Construction did not begin on the two labs until the beginning of the 3\"* and final funded year of the magnet program. Data from interviews and surveys put the move-in date at nine weeks before the end of the school year. Even then, only the shell was completed\nequipment then had to be installed. During the following extension year, in April, 2005, there was still some construction taking place when the evaluator visited the labs. The area in back of the labs was mostly dirt and renovation was in progress on one of the parking areas. The following chart summarizes information found in a seven page memo entitled November 2005 Construction Report - Bond Projects on the districts website. Upon reviewing the data. It appears that, for a few schools, the labs were only one of several construction projects at the sites and the schedules estimated completion dates refer to entire construction projects. Consequently, lab completion and movein dates may have been earlier. IN LRSD Bond Construction Projects/Grant Funded MSAP Magnet School Programs Years N22 20012004 + Extension Year - 2004  2005 Bond Projects That Have Been Completed Cloverdale Middle School Mabelvale Middle School J. A. Fair High School McClellan High School Type Major Renovation and Addition Renovation 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music room addition Classroom Addition Cost $1,393,822 $6,851,621 $3,155,640 $2,155,622 Estimated Completion Date November, 2002 March, 2004 August, 2004 July, 2004 The comments from surveyed principals and teachers supported the finding that lack of facilities impeded the MSAP Schools ability to implement their magnet programs. A few examples of their input follow: A. During Grant-Supported Years B The Little Rock School District did not begin the construction of our Environmental and Medical Labs until the beginning of the 3'' and final year of the MSAP grant. The labs were ready, (partially) for us to move into 9 (nine) weeks before school was out.\" Lack of getting facilities (until) last year of the grant.  Late construction projects  Equipment (late), Programs (late), one classroom not completed on time.  Timeliness in securing some items through district bid process.  B When Funding Ceased. In surveys and interviews, some respondents mentioned that just as they were getting started, their grant funding expired and the district did not allot any money explicitly for their magnet programs. Any funding for the programs had to come from their general school funds which meant that money that went to the magnet programs was money taken away from something else. As a result, after federal funding ceased, all of the MSAP Magnet programs were downsized to some degree and student access to the programs was impacted. In interviews, the evaluator heard that trained magnet staff had to be cut, one school had gone from six to three magnet teachers (and possibly to one next year), supplies were dwindling, and equipment was in need of repair or being dismantled. Although they are general comments, some of the following survey examples captured the outlook of some.  District has not provided continued monetary support...  Board and Administration have not supported the ongoing program, (and) have caused significant leadership turn over within the program ... Embedded Magnet Programs PIl 23 II II II Background. Like full-scale magnet schools, magnet programs that are embedded in an area schools curriculum encourage student diversity and attempt to offer high quality educational opportunities and educational choices that meet students interests and talents. This section of the report briefly describes the six embedded Magnet Programs evaluated in this study. As background, the chart below provides each schools magnet theme and the number of African-American and Caucasian students tagged by the Department of Computer Information Services as magnet students. IN Some of the information in the chart reflects an unresolved problem with Year I data because schools that are labeled magnet schools appear to have very few magnet students. Embedded Magnet Program Themes and Tagged Magnet Student Numbers - 2004-05  2005-06 IN School Level Magnet Theme IN IN IN IN IN IN Elementary King Romine Washington Middle Dunbar Henderson High School Central Magnet School embedded in School Name Yes No No. of African-Am Students Tagged as Magnet Students 04-05 05-06 No. of Caucasian Students Tagged as Magnet Students 04-05 OS-O6 High Intensity International Studies (Interdistrict School) Computer Science and Basic Skills (Interdistrict School) Basic Skills Math- Science Magnet (Interdistrict School) Gifted/T alented International Studies Health Science Magnet International Studies 10 23 15 16 46 51 154 131 73 229 48 131 167 241 X X 4 8 7 0 0 X X 6 1 1 X X 4 9 IN Data Source: Department of Computer Information Services - Number of Students Tagged as Magnet IN IN Martin Luther King, Jr., Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School. Opened in 1993, Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Magnet elementary provides its tri-district students with a unique approach to learning. Standards-based thematic units in core subjects help students make natural connection during the learning process, promote interdisciplinary inquiries and require challenging projects. In addition, students participate in a variety of programs and specialty classes. King offers students STAR Math and Reading which are computer based programs that identify and monitor students reading and math levels and reinforce their skills in both areas. Project SOAR, a second program, assists teachers and students in identifying their learning and instruction needs and monitor what is working and what is not. King students may also participate in music, art and physical education classes. All K-2 students participate in a weekly enrichment program and 3\"-5'*' students have a Gifted/Talented program available to them. IN Romine Computer Science and Basic Skills Interdistrict Elementary School. Established in 1963, Romine Interdistrict Elementary School offers its currently enrolled 365 interdistrict students a program that focuses on basic skills and computer science. Romine supports its basic skills emphasis with added features24 like the Arkansas Reading Program, a Gifted mathematics program and use of a computer lab under the direction of a certified technology specialist. The Lab offers students the opportunity to reinforce their reading, math and language arts skills and become accomplished computer users. With the integration of the literacy and math curriculum and additional use of technology into the classrooms, Romine believes it has created an engaging learning environment that will motivate students to become successful learners. H B Booker T. Washington Basic Skills and Math-Science Magnet Interdistict Elementary School. Able to serve approximately 850 students, Booker T. Washington Elementary School was first established in its current facility as an incentive school in 1989. In 1990-1991, it introduced its Basic Skills/Math/Science magnet program and became an Interdistrict Elementary School serving students from all three Pulaski county school districts. To support its Math-Science magnet program, the school established partnerships with the Little Rock Wastewater Utility, Project WET, Arkansas Game and Pish, Project WILD, UALRs Department of Physics and Astronomy, and the Aerospace Education Center. Through these partnerships, students are able to not only learn about science and mathematics in the classroom and their two Math Labs and two Science Labs, but see how what they are learning is applied in science and industry. B   Dunbar Gift and Talented International Studies Middle School. With a current enrollment of 811 students, Dunbar Middle School offers all students a standard middle school curriculum and at least one required foreign language interdisciplinary elective each year. Dunbar also has embedded in its curriculum a Gifted and Talented International Studies magnet program. Students enrolled in the program take accelerated mathematics, science, social studies and English. They have access to more than 25 electives and over 30 activity clubs. Dunbar is also supported by a strong volunteer group that donates 40+ hours per student per year to the school. B B B Henderson Health Science Magnet Middle School, In addition to its regular school curriculum, Henderson Health Science Magnet provides students with the opportunity to learn about health science and potential career opportunities through its magnet program. Magnet students study Basic Anatomy and Physiology, Microscope Use, Diseases  Prevention and Treatments, Disorders of the Human Body, Current Trends in Health Care, Health Careers and Health Care Exploration. (School Brochure, 2005) Students can also job shadow and learn more about the Health Sciences and their practices in their Health Science Club activities. B Central International Studies (IS) High School. Central High School International Studies Magnet Program seeks to prepare its students for participation in a global society. Along with the multi-year study of at least one foreign language. Central High requires that its magnet students take courses in Global Insights, American History, and International Relations/Contemporary Issues. In addition, Centrals magnet students can take elective classes in subjects such as World Geography, World History, Comparative Government, Global Economics, Physical Geology/Environmental Science, Drama, and International Studies. With a working knowledge of history and geography, the schools magnet leaders hope that Centrals I.S. students will be able to relate to people from different cultures, learn to communicate in at least one foreign language, and be capable of analyzing complex global issues. B B B Program Implementation Levels Each of the magnet schools and magnet programs in this study has a unique history, purpose, structure and funding level. These factors make it difficult to compare one school with another. However, in reviewing the data, the evaluator observed implementation trends across the sets of schools/programs (Stipulation B^ B BII 25 II Magnet Schools, MSAP Magnet Schools, and Schools with Magnet Programs). This section of the report summarizes a few of these trends, while later sections supplement the summary. II II There were two areas that provided data on the level to which the schools were implementing their magnet programs. The first was the degree to which magnet class offerings impacted students educational choices. The second was the extent to which the faculty integrated magnet themes across the curriculum. II II 1. Magnet Class Offerings. Observation and interview data indicated that the magnet programs, whether all-school or smaller embedded programs had varying degrees of impact on the schools course offerings. As a group. Stipulation Magnet schools had the strongest instructional impact because they were able to offer more magnet classes than the MSAP schools or schools with embedded magnet programs. For example, students enrolled in Parkviews Arts and Science Magnet School could chose from among 68 visual and performing arts classes if they were specializing in the Arts and 18 specialized science classes if they were enrolled in the Science magnet strand. II II Booker Fine Arts Magnet, a Stipulation Magnet School, offered 30 fine arts classes to its Kindergarten through 5* grade students. Besides their regular curriculum course work kindergarten students, for example, had classes in Creative Movement, Drama, Rhythm Instruments, Violin, Vocal and Visual Arts. Children in third and fourth grades took Creative Movement, Drama, Piano and Vocal or Stringed Instruments, and Visual Arts. In the music area, fifth grade students could choose to enroll for the year in either Band, Choir, Piano or Stringed Instruments. II II II II II Among the remaining schools and programs, the impact on course offerings varied. Central High School, for example, offered its magnet students a number of classes such as: Multicultural Literature, World Geography, Comparative Government and Politics, World Culture, French, Spanish, German, Latin, African/African American History, World History, Global Studies. Before funding ceased the MSAP schools offered its students a number of magnet classes and currently still offer several classes in their magnet strands. Mabelvale Magnet Middle Schools, for example, offered the following magnet classes: 6* Grade - Eco-Journeys (Environmental Science)\nSPRINT! (Seeing Productivity Results in Networking Technologies) (Technology)\nVoyages (Medical/Health) 7'* Grade - Earth Quest (Environmental Science)\nBYTES (Building Your Technology Education Successfully) (Technology)\nMEDICS (Medical Exploration for Developing Informed Choices) (Medical/Health) II Grade ~ Environmental Science (Environmental)\nPRISM (Presenting Research In Specific Media) (Technology)\nM.A.S.H. (Medical Applications for Sustaining Health) (Medical/Health) II II The number of specialized magnet classes embedded program offered varied. In addition to their regular sciences classes, Henderson Health Sciences Magnet students took the following year long classes\n6* Grade - Introduction to the Health Sciences: Cells the Building Blocks of Life, Basic Anatomy \u0026amp; Physiology, and Microscopes II 7\"* Grade - Diseases and Disorders of the Human Body. Diseases, Conditions, and Disorders of Several Systems, Prevention \u0026amp; Treatment. II g\"' Grade - Health Careers and You: History, Current Trends and the Future of Health Care, Legal II M B B B B IBIl26 \u0026amp; Ethical Principals, Health Care Exploration v King Elementary was unique in that it integrated its High Intensity interdisciplinary magnet theme across all subjects and grade levels. Teachers created and used thematic units that incorporated core content subject matter with other subjects such as art, computer graphics and creative writing. 2. Magnet Theme Integration. - During classroom observations, the evaluator tracked the level of magnet theme integration into schools regular curriculum. Although there were indications across a number of schools that theme integration crossed curricula areas, the evaluator observed the most consistent and richest integration of magnet themes across the set of Stipulation Magnet Schools. Since the group consisted of well-established full-scale magnet schools, it was not unusual that their teachers integrated their schools magnet themes school-wide. B The evaluator observed several classes at Booker Arts Magnet School. During the observations, teachers often integrated fine arts into other subjects. The evaluator observed, for example, a Language Arts class where the students had read a story about an artist and were writing summaries of what they had learned about his life and work. At the time of the observation, some students were completing their writing assignment, while others were beginning to work on an illustration of the artist or his work using information they had learned from the story. In another class, first graders had completed their studies of the solar system and had illustrated what they had learn with a drawing of the planets. Their drawings demonstrated that the teacher had asked them to draw the planets in correct order and according to scale. B At Parkview Arts and Science Magnet, the evaluator observed a German class for 20 minutes. The students were in the process or had just completed reading an essay in German about an artist who drew cafe scenes of Germany. The teacher asked the class to write a summary in German of what they had learned about the artist and his drawing and complete the assignment by drawing a similar depiction of life in America. B At the MSAP Schools and schools with embedded Magnet Programs, the evaluator observed varying levels and types of integration. The magnet themes at these schools and programs did not always cross into core curriculum areas, but the teachers of the specialty classes did require that their students use their Literacy and mathematics skills to demonstrate what they had learned. Magnet students designed, wrote and presented oral summaries of their International Studies assignments at Central High School. At Cloverdale Middle School, Information Technology magnet students used technology software to analyze budgets and their mathematics skills to make life decisions in a role-playing assignment. They also used the Internet to research the history of Little Rock and used the word processor to write a summary of their findings. B B B BII 27 II II Minority Group Isolation II II Since their inception, Magnet Schools have played an important role in attracting substantial numbers of students of different racial backgrounds to public schools. With a goal of promoting educational excellence through specialized curriculum programs, magnet schools offer parents and students with special interest and talents a number of educational choices. This study examined ten LRSD magnet schools of choice  six court Stipulation Magnet Schools created in the late 1980s, and four federally funded MSAP Magnet Schools converted from existing schools in 2001. This section examines the status of diversity in these schools. II II Evaluation Question 2: Are the Stipulation Magnet Schools and the MSAP Schools, in particular, continuing to reduce, eliminate or prevent minority group isolation within their schools? II II Stipulation Magnet Schools. Over a recent five year period, the six Stipulation Magnet Schools have maintained a racial/ethnic balance across their student populations. The graph below compares the equally weighted mean percentages of the six Stipulation Schools racial/ethnic distributions in the baseline school year of 2000-2001 to data from school year 2004 - 2005. It also displays the six schools against the district mean percentages for the same two years for additional comparison purposes. II The data are organized under two racial/ethnic groups similar to how the Federal Courts handling the Little Rock School District desegregation case references the groups. In the graph below, the designation, NonAfrican-Americans, refers to Caucasian, Hispanics and Other. II II II II II II 100 c ,2  \u0026lt;A 5 v a c o 4) 0. 80 60 40 20 68% 53% I African American stipulated Magnet Schools Comparison of Racial/Ethnic Distribution Averages 2000-01 vs 2004-05 (Due to rounding, all pecentages did not add up to 100%) 53% I 69% 47% 32% NonAfrican American (2000-2001) African American 48% 31% Non- African American (2004 *- 2005)  Stipulated Schools  District Average 0 I On a school-by-school basis, the six Stipulation Schools maintained stable and balanced racial/ethnic student populations over the most recent five-year period. See chart below for details.28 H H Stipulation Magnet Schools Racial/Ethnic Distributions 2001-02 - 2005-06 School African-American Students Non-African-American Students 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 M   Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Mann Parkview 54% 53.5% 52% 52% 52% 49.5% 53% 53% 51% 51% 52% 50% 55% 54% 52% 52% 50% 51% 54% 52% 53% 52% 50% 51% 54% 54% 53% 51% 50% 50% 46% 46.5% 48% 48% 48% 40.5% 47% 47% 49% 49% 48% 50% 45% 46% 48% 48% 50% 49% 46% 48% 47% 48% 50% 49% 46% 46% 47% 49% 50% 50% Bl Data Sources: Planning, Research and Evaluation Department and Student Registration Magnet School Assistance Program Magnet Schools (MSAP). Over a four-year time period there has been no noticeable change in the MSAP schools racial/ethnic distribution averages. The schools have not reduced, eliminated or prevented minority group isolation within their schools over the last four years. However, although the de-isolation of minorities was a major goal of the MSAP grant, there is evidence that these schools never really were able to fully implement their magnet programs during grant funded years and are now struggling to maintain their magnet programs as full-scale curriculum entities. Bl The graph below compares the equally weighted mean percentages of the four MSAP schools racial/ethnic distributions in school year of 2000-2001 to data from school year 2004 - 2005. It also displays the four schools against the district means for the same two years. The data are organized like the Stipulated Magnet data, with the designation Non-African-Americans defined as Caucasian, Hispanic and Other. BlIl 29 II II II II II II II II II II II II 100 90 80 70 84% w u o eo c 01 o 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 African American Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools (MSAP) Comparison of Racial/Ethnic Distribution Averages 20001-01 vs 2004-05 NonAfrican American (2000 - 2001) 85% i  MSAP Schools I  District Average Africen American I NonAfrican American (2004 - 2005) On a school-by-school basis, the four MSAP Magnet Schools were unable to maintained balanced racial/ethnic student populations over the most recent five-year period. See chart below for details. MSAP Magnet Schools Racial/Ethnic Distributions 2001-02 - 2005-06 School 01-02 African-American Students 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 Non-African-American Students 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 Cloverdale Mabelvale J.A. Fair McClellan 88% 79% 79% 91.5% 86% 76% 79% 93% 84% 75% 81% 93% 82% 81% 85% 92% 82% 81% 86% 90% 12% 21% 21% 9.5% 14% 24% 21% 7% 16% 25% 19% 7% 18% 19% 15% 8% 18% 19% 14% 10% Data Source: Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department 30 Opportunity to Meet State and/or District Content and Performance Standards V If students are to achieve high academic levels, they must have access to rigorous standards-based curricula and opportunities to master the standards driving the content and performance level expectations. The evaluator collected data to answer the following evaluation question addressing this issue.  Evaluation Question 3: Are all of the Magnet Schools and Programs providing students with the opportunity to meet State and/or District content and performance standards? The Little Rock School District has begun to create a comprehensive standards-based Pre-K - 12 curriculum program to guide learning and instruction in its schools and classrooms. Centered around four core subjects, English, mathematics, science and social studies, the curriculum will be based on sets of curriculum maps and pacing guides that are currently being developed. These maps will delineate the skills and content teachers will follow and children will be expected to master. The newly defined curriculum will be aligned with state content standards which are currently being revamped by the state. Previously, the Arkansas State Department of Education provided schools with bands of curriculum standards and teachers had to identify the content that was appropriate for their grade levels. The state is now developing grade level content standards that teachers will use to guide their classroom instruction. The display below presents excerpts from preliminary work done on the districts Grade 4 Curriculum Overview and matches it to current state content standards for Grade 4 in Reading. B Comparison of the State Curriculum Framework and Content Standards for Grade 4 with an Excerpt from the LRSDs Grade 4, Month-by-Month Reading Curriculum Overview B State Framework - Strand: Reading. Standard 9 ~ Comprehension Students shall apply a variety of strategies to read and comprehend printed material. Graded - R.9.4.1 Organize prior knowledge and new information to make meaning of the text. Grade 4 - R.9.4.4 Revise mental pictures based on new informat if fl from the text. Little Rock School Distrii Grade Four - Reading / Curriculum Overview/ August A September  Raad for a variety of purposes /  Rrad daily /  Serect materials for reading on independent reading level-base on interest and prior knowlei ie  Form mental pictures with new information  Revise mental pictures with new information. Bl ,1II 31 II II II Classroom Observations. The evaluator conducted 122 classroom observations to collect data on this question. Early observations focused on the types of learning environments the schools had created\nlater and longer observations focused on whether curriculum content was standards-based, the levels of thinking asked of the students, and the role of the teacher and student in the learning process. Although the evaluator saw several lessons across grade levels and schools, there were not enough in-depth observations and data to answer this evaluation question fully. II II What is encouraging, however, is that the data did suggest that observed teachers were focusing on standards-based content, especially teachers in elementary schools. In K-5 classrooms, the evaluator observed students studying core literacy and math content and practicing their writing and computational skills. Many K-5 students were highly engaged in the learning process and activities teachers had organized often tapped students prior knowledge and required them to refine or expand their skill base. However, as the evaluators observations progressed through the grades, the evaluator observed mixed levels of quality and rigor. II II In the upper grades, the problem in some observations was not so much in content and whether it was standards-based, but in instructional pace and clarity of goals. Mixed in with observations of classes that were rigorous and standards-based, the evaluator observed other secondary classes where instructional content was thin. In these classes, it was hard to understand what the lesson was about and what the students were suppose to do and accomplish. II During Year II, additional time will be spent collecting samples of student work that are standards-based and conducting more classroom observations. II II II II II II II II II II32  Equitable Program Access  The question addressing equitable access to magnet programs is central to one of the most important purposes of magnets - the elimination of minority isolation. In the work completed during Year I, there were few indications that magnet program participation differences across racial/ethnic school populations existed in the schools. However, the evaluator was unable to collect enough data to render formal findings across all sixteen magnet programs. Consequently, this area of inquiry will go forward during Year II of the evaluation. The question will remain the same and reads as follows: Bl Bl Question 4: Are their any program participation differences between minority and non-minority groups within the 17 Schools and Programs? Of the data that the evaluator did collect, the history of Dunbars Gifted and Talented (G/T) Magnet program was the most interesting. Historically, Caucasian students outnumbered African-American students in this program. However, recently, Dunbars leadership has made noticeable strides in narrowing the G/T racial/ethnic enrollment gap. Past and current magnet leaders narrowed the gap by identifying and educating all S\"* grade G/T students and parents about Dunbars program. Leadership implemented an aggressive recruited plan. Dunbar administrators and representatives visited district elementary schools and addressed PTA and Town Hall meetings, explaining the program and answering questions about it. All fifth grade GT students were mailed invitations to shadow b* grade Dunbar G/T students for a day\ntheir parents received invitations to tour the school. At the schools Open House, G/T teachers talked with students and parents about the program and a program brochure and video-tape provided useful information to interested families. B Bl Bl Dunbar now has a more equitable enrollment distribution in its G/T program with the newly enrolled, 2005- 2006, sixth grade magnet group evidencing a much different racial distribution than the 8'*' grade group that enrolled as b* graders in 20032004. The chart below displays the positive results'*. Program Level Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Totals African-Am. Count 84 48 21 154 African-Am. Percent 43.5 42.9 24.4 Data Source: LRSD Student Registration 39.3% (average) Other Count 109 64 65 238 Other Percent 56.5 57.1 75.6 60.7% (average) Total 193 112 86 392 Max Capacity Vacancy -193 -112 -86 0^ 0 0 4 The format and information in this chart were provided by the LRSD Student Registration Department. The term Other signifies all racial/ethnic groupings other than African-American children. Caucasian students comprised the largest group of children in this category. Because district departments organize their data differently, the evaluator realizes that the data displayed in this chart has the potential of contradicting data provided by the Department of Computer Information Services that are displayed elsewhere. 5.,, Bl Maximum Capacity numbers are not set for Dunbars Magnet Programs.Il 33 II II Additionally, the G/T program has structures in place to meet varying achievement levels once students are in the program. The school offer three levels of skill-based instruction to magnet students of varying skill levels. In addition, Dunbar offers its G/T magnet students a number of different classes to accommodate differing strengths and interests. Learning how engaging and effective these classes are will be part of the work that takes place in Year II of the evaluation. II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II34 Special Situations  The evaluation plan called for the study of 18 magnet schools and schools with embedded magnet programs. The task was to determine how well they functioned, how much they impacted academic achievement and how many students of different racial/ethnic backgrounds they attracted. It became evident early on that two of the 18 presented specials situations - Hall High School and Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet School. The two schools and their unique situations are discussed below. M Bl Hall High School Bl Hall High School was originally included in the list of magnet schools and magnet programs to be studied in this evaluation. However, although it has a University Studies Specialty program, Hall does not have a Magnet program and, at this time, should not be in the evaluation study.  What may have contributed to the belief that the school had a magnet program was the fact that the district applied to the U.S. Department of Education for a federally funded Magnet School Assistance Program (MSAP) grant for Hall. This was a complex, time-consuming undertaking that required district and Board approval, and had it been awarded, the MSAP designation would have made Hall a full-scale Magnet High School and all of its students, magnet students. However, the awards were competitive and the district (and its plan for Hall) was not among those funded that year. In addition, the continuing belief that Hall has a magnet program appears to be supported by the inclusion of its Specialty program in the three-page section of the Districts Website that discusses the magnet choices parents have available to them. B Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet School Background. Much of the data collection earmarked for the magnet schools and programs in the evaluation study did not apply to Rockefellers Early Childhood Magnet School. Rockefellers Magnet School is a stand-alone, fee-based school that serves a different population than the 16 other K-12 schools/programs in the study. The school accepts children as young as six weeks old and the children take no standardized tests, school data such as attendance and mobility are not particularly relevant, and race is no longer a placement factor although it was until the districts assignment component was released from court supervision a few years back. A summary of the program follows. Bl Rockefeller Early Childhood School. Rockefellers Early Childhood (EC) Magnet program is the only program in the district to enroll infants as young as six weeks old. Enrollment is open to children from the age of 6 weeks to four years old and children from all of LRSDs attendance zones may apply. There are six certified Early Childhood teachers and 18 trained Instructional Assistants. In addition to the school nurse, there are also six specialists available for consultations who have expertise in art, computers, music, media, counseling and physical education. The program can accommodate children with some special needs and the staff are trained in CPR and First Aid. At capacity, Rockefeller can enroll 108 students in its Early Childhood magnet. Available seats are organized and distributed in the following manner: Bl  14 seats available for Pl, the group of children six weeks to 2 years of age.  18 seats available for P2, 2 years olds (must be 2 yrs. old before Sept. 15)  36 seats available for P3, 3 years old  40 seats available for P4,4 years old Bl BIl 35 II II The chart below provides enrollment figures for school year 2005-2006. Over-all, the ethnic/racial distribution across the four levels is 63% African-American and 37% Other (Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, Native American or Mixed.) II II II II II II II II II II Program Level PI 6 wks - 2yrs. P2 2 yr. olds P3 3 yr. olds P4 4 yr. olds Totals African-Am. Count 23 26 64 African-Am. Percent 57.1 41.2 69.7 68.4 62.7% (average) Data Source: LRSD Student Registration Other Count 10 10 12 38 Other Percent 42.9 58.8 30.3 31.6 37.3% (average) Total 14 17 33 38 102 Total Capacity 14 18 36 40 108 Vacancy Rockefellers Early Childhood cuniculum program is aligned with the Arkansas Department of Human Services (a) Framework for Quality Care for Infants and Toddlers and (b) A Framework for Quality Care and Education for Children from Three to Five. The Infant/Toddler curriculum focuses on improving listening and speaking skills and vocabulary, the promotion of positive personal and social interactions, learning personal care routines, and experiencing hands-on art activities. The curriculum framework for ages three to five addresses (a) Social/Emotional Development, (b) Creative/Aesthetic Learning, (c) Cognitive/Intellectual Learning, (d) Physical Development and (e) Language. Children learn how to act independently and interact socially, are introduced to math, science, language arts and social studies content, learn about health and nutrition, engage in fine and gross motor skill-building, and have numerous opportunities to express their ideas about various topics and build language skills. 8 7 6 0 1 3 2 6 I I II II The schools EC leaders utilize the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales as a springboard for planning and implementing their programs and monitoring program outcomes. These scales were designed to help EC educators create developmentally appropriate learning environments for young children. They were the result of studies and research into the question of how to measure and assess the quality of EC programs and have become an acceptable measurement tool. The Infant/Toddler Environmental Rating Scale (ITERS) targets children 0-2 Vi years and the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) addresses children from ages 2 ^2-5 years. Both scales track a number of areas. The ECERS consist of 43 items organized into seven sub-scales. The sub-scales I  The format and information in this chart were provided by the LRSD Student Registration Department. The term Other signifies all racial/ethnic groupings other than African-American children. The largest group of children within this category were Caucasians. I36 address such program components as: Space and Furnishings, Personal Care Routines, Language- Reasoning, Interactions, Activities, Program Structure, and Parents and Staff.  Full Implementation - Promoted/impeded. The survey that principals completed ask them to write about what had promoted/impeded full implementation of their magnet program. Rockefellers principal cited that its adequate and qualified staff, including certified teachers and a veteran Early Childhood coordinator supported full implementation and program quality. The principal expressed concern about how the 2004 changes in LRSDs student assignment policy has impacted Rockefellers elementary school enrollment and diversity. Rockefeller is no longer allowed to keep students who begin in the EC program through to 5* grade. This has interrupted, what had been in the past, a steady flow of students into its kindergarten class. Now, the only EC children who can attend Rockefeller after the completion of their 4'* year in the EC program are those that live in Rockefellers attendance zone. B M n n Recommendation  Rockefeller Integrate Rockefellers Early Childhood Magnet School with Rockefellers Elementary School so that all children in the Magnet School have the opportunity to attend the Elementary School. n  Il 37 II II SECTION III II II II II II II II II II II II HI II 11 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT - COMBINED POPULATIONS GENERAL FINDINGS Stipulation Magnet Schools. The percentage of Stipulation Magnet School students Proficient and Above in Literacy and mathematics has steadily increased over time, with recent percentages ranging from high (62%-88% in Literacy) to moderate (43%-76% in mathematics) in the two areas. Although their mathematics percentages were lower than their Literacys, African-American students at the six Stipulation Schools also demonstrated increases in the two mastery levels in both subject areas. Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools (MSAP) Over a recent three year period, the percentages of MSAP middle school and high school magnet students attaining Proficient and Above in Literacy and mathematics have increased. However even with the increases, at best, mastery levels for these groups of students were modest, with several mastery percentages still exceptionally low, especially in mathematics (4% -12%). (Across MSAP schools, recent Literacy Proficient and Above ranges were 19%-43%.) Comparison Results. In almost every instance across grade and school levels, the Stipulation Magnet Schools had higher percentages of students who were Proficient and Above in Literacy and mathematics than other schools in the study. However, it is important to remember that wherever there are data for schools with embedded magnet programs, the graphs display all-school data, not magnet student data. When it is clear how many magnet students there are in these schools, the graphs will be redone to reflect their benchmark results.38 H Section III: Student Achievement - Combined Populations  This section of the report examines achievement data for all students enrolled in the magnet schools and, if possible, the embedded magnet programs in the evaluation study. The information contained here attempts to answer the following question:   Evaluation Question 5: Have the Magnet Schools (Stipulation and MSAP Schools) and Specialty Magnet Programs been effective in improving students academic achievement?  The Little Rock School District uses two types of tests to measure student achievement, criterion-referenced tests (what a student knows) and norm-referenced tests (how a student compares to other students). Recent changes in both aspects of Arkansas testing program, changes in the cut points that govern student subject proficiency placement in its Benchmark exams, and the mandates of No Child Left Behind made tracking student achievement over time a challenge.   Criterion-referenced Tests. In 2005, the Arkansas Department of Education recommended and the State Board of Education approved new benchmark cut scores for its state mandated criterion-referenced Benchmark exams. Cut scores are the points that divide scores on tests into advanced, proficient, basic and below basic performance categories. With the new cut scores, a child whose test score two years ago put his performance at proficient may find that the same score now puts him down one category to basic in the same tested area. Proficiency levels, rather than raw test scores, are what are published for the public. The Arkansas Department of Education suggested cut score changes, in part, to reflect (a) changes in the states English/Language Arts framework which forced the reformatting of the 2005 Literacy exam and (b) to address the addition of Grades 3, 5, and 7 (new grade level tests and cut scores) to the testing schedule. Norm-referenced Tests. An earlier change also made the tracking of the second category of achievement exams, norm-referenced tests, difficult. In the 2003-2004 school year, the state replaced the Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition (SAT9) it had been using with another norm-referenced test, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). It is difficult to compare the results of one test with the results of the another as content is never exactly the same, the order and number of questions are different, and the wording and format of the multiple choice selections can vary.  RI A. Arkansas Benchmark Exams. Part of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability program (ACTAAP), the Benchmark exams are criterion-referenced tests that measure the degree to which students have mastered, for example, the states Math and Literacy content standards. The state goal for each student is proficiency in all requirements at each grade level. Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well prepared for the next level of school. (Arkansas Department of Education, 2005 Arkansas School Performance Report, p. 3.) Previously administered to 4*, 6th and, 8* grade students, the testing program now includes 3', 5* and 7* grade students. However, since the purpose of this evaluation is to identify trends rather than single-year results, the graphs below display longitudinal data. In addition, the displays do not have the most recent 2005 results for the 4* grade because, for that year, the state changed how it categorized all student levels of proficiency and the change noticeably impacted 4\"' results, making the results for the most recent year moot.Il 39 II Stipulation Magnet Schools II II The percent of Stipulation Magnet School students Proficient and Above in Literacy and mathematics has shown solid increases over time, with current percentages ranging from high to moderate in the two subject areas.__________________________________________ II Elementary and middle school data are provided below. High School data are on pp. 36-37. II Stipulation Magnet Schools - Combined Population - Literacy II Academic Achievement Stipulated Elementary (4th) and Middle Grade (Sth) Magnet Schools Combined Populations Percent Proficient and Above  Literacy 100 90 86% 88% II II II II II II II II 80 I S c V u 2 Q. C V 2 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ihlllll.i Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Mann  2001  2002  2003  2004 Data Source Literacy/Math: Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District - 2005 - DRAFT Stipulation Magnet Schools - Combined Population - Mathematics Academic Achievement Stipulated Elementary (4th) and Middle Grade (6th) Magnet Schools Combined Populations Percent Proficient and Above - Mathematics 100 w O o c \u0026lt;0 90 80 70 60 .\u0026amp; 50 o 40 u 30 76% 20 10 0 I II hll 1.1 Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Mann  2001  2002  2003  200440  Magnet Schools Assistance Program Magnet Schools (MSAP)  Over a three year period, the percentages of MSAP middle school and high school students attaining Proficient and Above performance levels have increased. However, even with the increases, almost all of the percentages were low, with mathematics mastery especially low.  I The following graphs display Literacy and mathematics Benchmark data by Combined Populations. MSAP Schools \"Combined Population - Literacy H Academic Achievement MSAP Magnet Middle Schools and High Schools Combined Population Percent Proficient and Above in Literacy 2003'2005 100  90 o 80 c \u0026lt;0 s o o 70 60 50 40 4) O V o. 30 20 10 33% 29% Cloverdale - 8th 43% Mabelvale - Sth 24% Fair - 11th 1 9% McClellan - 11th  2003  2004  2005 0 n Data Source: School Report CardsMSAP Magnet School - Combined Populations - Mathematics and Algebra I (End-of-Course-EOC) Academic Achievement Combined Population M SAP M iddle Schools (Sth) and High Schools (End-of-Course-EOC) Percent Proficient and Above in M ath (M S) and Algebra I (HS) 2003 -- 2005 100 90 80 o co ae o S c 70 60 50  2003  2004  2005 ce o 40 30 20 10 3% 4% 13% Mabelvale  Sth 19% Fair -EOC 12% 6% Cloverdale  Sth McClellan - EOC 0 I Data Source: School Report Cards 11 41 11 11 Stipulation Magnet High School, MSAP High Schools and High School with Magnet Program 11 11 Since each group in the evaluation only had one or two high schools in it, the academic achievement of each of the high schools will be reported together in this section. As stated earlier, the results from schools with embedded magnet programs such as Central High School will change to reflect only magnet student results, not whole school populations, once the exact number of magnet students is established.. 11 End-of-Course Literacy and Mathematics - Combined Populations - High Schools 11 11 Academic Achievement End-of-Course Data  Algebra I Combined Populations Percent Proficient and Above 2001 - 2005 11 11 11 w \u0026gt; O \"c (Q C 4) *5 c o uV CL 11 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005 11 7%. 29% 1% Parkview Stipulated Fair MSAP 18% 23% 12% 1%l McCellan MSAP Central Program 11 11 American College Test. Students who want to enter a public college or university in Arkansas often are required to take the American College Test (ACT) as part of their application process. A student can score anywhere from 1 to 36 on the English and mathematics tests and is allowed to take the tests more than once. The graph below displays the four high schools average 2004 and 2005 ACT scores for their Combined Populations. The scores of African-American high school students who took the test can be found further on with comparison data from national and state averages for the same two years. 1 42 K H ACT College Entrance Exam - Combined Populations  ACT College Entrance Exam Combined Population Composite Mean Scores 2004 and 2005  30 25 20 o o u (/)  s 15 o E u 10 20.5 20.5 16.5 16.6 16.1 16.4 21.3 22.1  2004  2005 Parkview Stipulated Fair MSAP McClellan MSAP Central Program 5 0 I I I J    n Data Source: LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation Department1 II 43 II II Academic Achievement - Comparisons Across School Clusters IM In almost every instance across grade and school levels, the Stipulation Magnet Schools had higher percentages of students Proficient and Above in Literacy and Mathematics than other schools in the study. IM Elementary School (4) Comparisons - Literacy and Mathematics IM IM IM IM IM IM IM IM IM IM IM IM IM IM too so 80 70 60 c O so  40 X 20 10 0 w 43% 31% 2001 2002 100 90 80 \u0026lt; 70 a  60 c S o o 50 40 S 30 20 10 0 Benchmark Achievement Data Stipulation Magnets and Schools wZ Magnet Programs Combined Populations Percetn Proficient and Above - Literacy 2001-2004 81.8% 69.8% 2003 2004  Stipulated Magnets  Schools w/ Magnet Pro-ams Benchmark Achievement Data Stipulated Magnet Schools and Schools w/ Embedded Magnet Programs Combined Populations - 4th Grade Percent Proficient and Above - Mathematics 2001 - 2004 41.8% 2001 66.9%  Stipulated Magnets 53.4% 57.8% 45.9% 45.1%  Magnet Programs Only 29.3% 2002 I 2003 2004 44  Middle School (6\"' Grade) Comparisons - Literacy and Mathematics  6th Oade Benchmark Achievement Data All Students - All Ma^iet Fonnats Percent Proficient and Above - Uteracy  100 90 80  c o ^5 o IL 70 80 50 65.9% 49.1' B MSAP Schools 4) U O Q. 40 20 10 ia7% 13.8%^ ze% 2003 27.5% 2001 2002 2004 2005  IVbgiet Prepare Only  Stipiated h/bgaet X 0 !   6th Grade Benchmark Achievement MSAP Schcx\u0026gt;ls, Embedded Magnet Programs, and Stipulation Magnets Percent Proficient and Above - Mathematics 100 90 SO c 0) '5 1 Q. 70 60 50 42.7% 0) uo Q. 40 X 20 10 0 1.6% 12.8% 10.9% 2002 2003 2004 11.3%  MSAP Schools  Magnet Programs Only  Stipulated Magnet 2001 2005 II 45 II II II Academic Achievement MSAP Middle Schools and High Schools Combined Population Percent Proficient and Above in MaUi.(MS) and Algebra I (HS) 2003-2005 II II o XI \u0026lt; c (0 100 90 80 70 60 II II II  u o  c o o o CL 50 40 30 20 10 3.4% 4.4% Cloverdale -Sth 13% Mabelvale -Sth 29% 37% 4.5% 19% LRSD - Sth LRSD- EOC 19% 4.5% Fair - EOC 5.9% 12% McClellan -EOC 02003  2004 02005 0 II In Year II of this work, the evaluator intends to expand analysis of magnet student achievement by selecting comparison schools and grade levels that have similar demographics and examine their achievement history. II II II II II II II - Il46   SECTION IIIA ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT  AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDENTS I n GENERAL FINDINGS Stipulation Masnet Schools. Although their mathematics performance percentages were lower than their Literacys\nover time, the percentage of African-American Stipulation Magnet students who achieved mastery levels (Proficient and Above) in the two subject areas increased. In addition, high school students at Parkview Stipulation Magnet scored higher in their ACT Entrance Exams over a two year period than the national and state averages of African- American students who took the ACT exams during the same period. MSAP Schools. The percent of MSAP African-American students attaining Proficient and Above in Literacy and mathematics also increased over time. In Literacy, the middle school students fared better than the high school students, while the reverse was true in mathematics. However, for the most part, the percentage of students attaining Proficient and Above in both subject areas was low, especially in mathematics. Areas of Prosress. Although the percentage of MSAP students who were Proficient and Above in their Benchmark exams is low, the four MSAP schools have demonstrated progress in moving African-American students out of the Below Basic performance levels in Literacy and math. IIA: Academic Achievement - African-American StudentsIl 47 II II African-American Students. In addition to tracking Benchmark performance levels of all magnet school students, the evaluator also examined the Benchmark rankings of African-American students, since it is important to the district and schools that they serve these students well. II Stipulation Magnet Schools. Although their mathematics performance percentages were lower than their Literacys, over time, the percentage of Stipulation Magnet African-American students who achieved mastery levels {Proficient and Above) in the two subject areas has increased._____________ II Stipulation Magnet Schools - African-American Students - Literacy and Mathematics II Academic Achievement Stipulated Magnet Elementary (4th), Middle Schools (6th), District Levels (4th/6th) African-American Students Percent Proficient and Above in Literacy 2001 - 2004 II II II II II II II II II 100 90 80 73% 77% 79% c nc  oo \u0026amp;c  o 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 ilihhl.i53% 374 114 41%  2001  2002  2003  2004 Booker Carver Gibbs Williams District Elem. Mann 19% District Middle Data Source: Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District - 2005 - DRAFT Academic Achievement Stipulated Elementary (4th) and Middle Grade (Sth) Magnet Schools African-American Students Percent Proficient and Above - Mathematics 2001-2004 100 do 00 70  2001 a e u 2 60 50 40 30 20 10 44% 44% Booker Carver Gfcbs 58% 34% 49% 1% 31%  2002  2003  2004 Williams Mann  o .o I c  0 0 L I 4  I E II 1 J Data Source: Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District - 2005 - DRAFT 48 H MSAP Schools. The percent of MSAP African-American students attaining Proficient and Above in Literacy and mathematics also increased over time. In Literacy, the middle school students fared better than the high school students, while the reverse was true in math. However, for the most part, the percentage of students attaining Proficient and Above in both subject areas was low, especially so in mathematics.   MSAP Magnet Schools - African-American Students - Literacy and Mathematics  Academic Achievement MSAP Middle Schools and High Schools Percent Proficient and Above -- Literacy African-American Students 2003 - 2004  100  90 80 70 c a c o o \"S 60 50 40 34% 36% 30 28% 22%[ 20 10 Cloverdale Sth Mabelvale 8th 19% 21%  III Fair 11th McClellan 11th  2003  2004  2005 o 0  Data Source: School Report Cards n Academic Achievement African-American Students MSAP Middie Schools (Sth) and High Schools (End-of-Course- EOC) Percent Proficient and Above in Math (MS) and Algebra I (HS) 2003 - 2005 100 90 I I 80 c  c 4) O O 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 2% 5% 8% 15% 12%  2003  2004  2005 I 0% 2% 6% Cloverdale 6th Mabelvale 6th Fair EOC McClellan EOC c o 0 I Data Source: School Report Cards Areas of Progress IIl 49 II II Areas of Progress. Although the percentages of MSAP students who were Proficient and Above in their Benchmark exams are low, the four MSAP schools have demonstrated progress in moving African-American students out of the Below Basic performance levels in Literacy and mathematics. This is the lowest level of performance\nconsequently, the lower the percentage, the more at basic or above. I II MSAP Magnet Schools - African-American Students - Literacy - Below Basic II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II 100 90 80 Academic Achievement African-American Students MSAP Middle Schools (Sth) and High Schools (11th) Percent Below Basic - Literacy 2003 - 2005 u in a CD O V m c  u  70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 35% 23% 28% 27% 48% 36% 30% 29%  2003  2004 Cloverdaie 8th Mabelvale 8th Fair 11th McClelan 11th I  2005 Data Source: School Report Cards MSAP Magnet Schools - African-American Students - Mathematics/Algebra I - Below Basic Academic Achievement African-American Students MSAP Middle School (6th) and High School (End-of-Course EOC) Percent Below Basic in Math (MS) and Algebra I (HS) 2003 - 2005 c S 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 84% Cloverdaie 6th 63% 66% 52%  2003  2004  2005 Mabelvale 6th Fair EOC McClellan EOC Data Source: School Report CardsI 50  Achievement Gaps. Although there were achievement gaps between African-American and Caucasian students in Literacy and mathematics, generally, the gaps were consistently larger in math than in Literacy for those enrolled in the Stipulation Magnet schools and the MSAP Schools. This phenomena will be studied in depth in Year II of the work. The graphs below provide a one year example of the problem. (Benchmark data for students in the embedded magnet programs are not displayed here because a complete list of these students is not yet available.)    Elementary School Benchmark Data African-American and Caucasian Students Stipulation Magnet Schools Percent Proficient and Above - Literacy Grade 4 -2004 c g H 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 93% 96% - Illi Booker Carver Gibbs Williams  African-Am  Caucasian Bl Bl M H 0 Data Source: School Report Cards 100 Elementary School Benchmark Data African-American and Caucasian Stipulation Magnet Schools Percent Proficient and Above - Mathematics Grade 4 ~ 2004 90 89% 88% 80 70 60 c 0) u 50 40 30 20 10 44% Illi Booker Carver Gibbs Williams  African-Am  Caucasian 0 B Data Source: School Report CardsIl 51 II II Like the elementary schools, middle schools in the study have noticeable minority/non-minority achievement gaps in mathematics . The graph below is a one year example of the general trend. It is important to remember that data for Dunbar represent all African-American and Caucasian students rather than the smaller cohort of magnet students because that data were not available for them at this time. II Middle School Achievement Data African-American and Caucasian Students Percent Proficient and Above - Mathematics Grade 8 - 2004 II 100 90 80 II II II II 70 65% n o\u0026gt; w S y QI 60 50 40 30 20 10 8.8% 7% 40% 45% 21% 10% 3.4%| 9.3%^H  8.6%  African-Arn.  Caucasian Dunbar Magnet Program Henderson Magnet School Cloverdale MSAP School Mabelvale MSAP School Mann Stipulation Magnet 0 J Data Source: School Report Cards II II Other Gap Comparisons. African-American students at Parkview Stipulation Magnet and at Central High School scored higher in their ACT Entrance Exams over a two year period than the national and state averages of African-American students who took the ACT exams during the same period.______ ACT College Entrance Exam - African-American Students and Comparison Data II 1. Parkview High School - Stipulation Magnet Il ACT College Entrance Exam African-Am erican High School Students Mean Composite Scores 2004 and 2005 II II II II 20 19 16 15 National 16.7 16.7 Arkansas 1 8.2 19 Parkview S tip u la ted  2004 1 8  2005 II Data Source: LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation Department II I I 52 M ii. African-American students at J. A. Fair and McClellan Magnet High Schools did not score as high in their ACT Entrance Exams as their state and national counterparts. M ACT College Entrance Exam African-American High School Students Mean Composite Scores 2004 and 2005  20 I  19 18  2004  2005 17.1 17 I 7 --------- 16.7 16.7 I I 16 16 16.2 15 16.3 National Arkansas Fair MSAP McClellan MSAP  M Data Source: LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation Department iii. African-American students at Central High School which has an embedded magnet program outperformed their national and state counterparts in the ACT Exam in 2004 and 2005.  ACT College Entrance Exam African-American High School Students Mean Composite Scores 2004 and 2005 20 19 18.2 18  2004 17.1 17.3  2005 ::l U H I 15 National Arkansas Central Program H Data Source: LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation Department I M II 53 II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II SECTION IV: PROGRAM PERCEPTIONS Section IV: Program Perceptions54  Section IV explores program perceptions and summarizes the data collected to answer the following evaluation question: n Evaluation Question 6: What are the following stakeholders perceptions of Magnet Schools and Magnet Programs (a) levels of implementation, (b) impacts, (c) strengths, and (d) weaknesses: n  parents/suardians  students  teachers  school/program administrators and leaders M RI Parents. Data on parents perceptions of magnet schools and programs contributed to a fuller understanding of the role magnets play in the districts educational blueprint. The evaluation team interviewed or surveyed 229 adult family members who had children in a Stipulation Magnet School or a regular school with a Magnet program. Parents who participated in the interviews were randomly selected\nthose who were surveyed were not. School administrators and teachers selected which classes would receive the parent survey to take home. RI n Interviews and surveys were anonymous. Respondents were not asked or given the option of providing their childrens school, teacher, or family name. However, the evaluation team did know which schools returned surveys and which schools had parents who were interviewed. w u The children of family participants in every school except the middle school were either attending a magnet school or were magnet students in schools with magnet programs. The middle school sample which was randomly selected and anonymous participated in the interviews, but it is not known if any of those interviewed had children in either of the schools two magnet programs. u The chart below provides other details. RI Stipulation Magnet School Sample Carver Gibbs Williams Parkview Schools with Magnet Programs Sample King________________ Washington Dunbar Central Data Collection Method Phone Interview X X X No. of Family Members RI Survey X X X X X 25 30 43 16 Total = 114 45 25 33 37 Total = 140 RI RI RI RI Survey and Phone Interview Protocol. The evaluator used surveys and interviews to collect participants perceptions of the magnet schools and programs. Cost-efficient surveys added breadth to the data 7 RI The individual number of respondents per question varied because every respondent did not answer every question. RI RIIl 55 II II collection\ninterviews added depth. The size of the sample was impacted by other data collection activities in the district and ever-present time constraints. The evaluator chose magnet schools and programs that were well-established and included samples from both elementary and secondary schools. II II The surveys and phone interviews collected information about participants familiarity with their magnet school and/or program, their rationale for choosing a particular magnet format, and their perceptions of its value. The survey contained 15 items\nthe interview protocol, 24. The extra interview questions solicited additional information such as, What is your relationship to the child?, \"Do you have any other children in a magnet school or regular school? and Do you live inside the Attendance Zone?. II Both data collection tools contained closed-ended, (a selection of answer choices were provided), and ppem ended questions (participants were free to answer as they liked). Some questions or requests solicited general information, e.g., Does your child like school?, and others specifically targeted magnets, e.g., Please describe the magnet program at your childs school. Participants also answered other questions such as the following: II II  Are your childs learning needs being met?  Do you believe your child is receiving a quality education?  Is it important to you that your childs school has a magnet program?  Would you continue to have your child attend the school if it no longer had a magnet program? Why? or Why not? II II The survey did not ask for race or ethnicity, but the interview protocol offered it as an option. Of the 105 interviewees who provided the information, 58% were African-American, 27% Caucasian, 3% Asian, 1% Hispanic and 11% Other. The childrens mothers, grandmothers and fathers were the ones most frequently at home and willing to be interviewed. II II Data Analysis and Display. Descriptive statistics were deemed the best fit for the quantitative data the team collected. Charts, graphs and narratives provide an explanation of the findings and accompanying recommendations. The qualitative, open-ended data were reviewed and organized under common themes and discussed in narratives that frequently contain examples of respondents input. (See Appendix for a complete copy of the parent survey.) II Major Findings. The major findings derived from the parent survey and Interview data were: II Sampled parents of children in Stipulation Magnet Schools . ..  could describe their magnet program better than sampled parents of children in regular schools with a magnet program H  placed higher value on their childrens magnet program than did sampled parents of children in schools with a magnet program II II II  would be less likely, than sampled magnet-program parents, to continue sending their children to their Stipulation Magnet School if it no longer had its magnet program or had an altered program of diminished quality Discussion. The data showed that a majority of sampled parents believed their children liked school and that the schools were preparing their children for the future. Two-thirds (magnet programs) to three quarters (Stipulation magnets) of the parents thought that their childrens learning needs were being met and III 56  Ml a solid majority in both groups thought their children were receiving a quality education. However, in three other areas, there were noticeable differences in program perceptions and knowledge between the sampled parent groups. A summary of these differences follows. M First, more sampled parents of Stipulation Magnet children could accurately describe their schools magnet focus than those sampled parents of children enrolled in schools with magnet programs. This was true even among the sample whose children were identified as enrolled in an embedded magnet program . Ml H Second, it was noticeably more important to sampled Stipulation Magnet parents that their school had a magnet program than their counterparts with children enrolled in regular schools with a magnet program. Third, only 29% of sampled Stipulation Magnet parents said that they would continue to send their children to their magnet school if it no longer had a magnet program, while a somewhat higher percentage (41%), but less than a majority, of parents with children enrolled in a school with a magnet program would continue enrollment under similar circumstances. Displays one, two and three contain details.  M 1. Magnet Program Description H Parents' Ability to Describe Magnet Program Stipulated Magnet Schools/Schools with Magnet Program 2005 - 2006 100 90 80 70 S, 60 O) w  50 o A\u0026gt; Q. 40 30 20 10 0 78%   ill Accurate Description Inaccurate Description  Stipulated Magnet Schools N=70  Schools w/ Magnet Program N=83 Ml Ml Ml  In the parents  words . ..  Stipulation Magnets Ml  \"They study a lot of cultures and languages.   It focuses on traditional subjects - math, science, reading, etc. and makes sure that the kids excel in these core subjects.  Ml  Regular School with a Magnet Program Ml  Good school and classroom well equipped.   They do a lot of activities.\" 2. Importance of Magnet Program. Ml Ml MlI 57 II IN In interviews and surveys, parents answered a question about whether it was important to them that their childs school had a magnet program. The data indicated that parents whose children were enrolled in a Stipulation Magnet School felt more strongly about the fact that their childs school had a magnet program than did parents with children enrolled in an area schools embedded magnet program. See display below for details. IN Parents' Perceptions of Magnet Schools and Programs ls it important to you that your child's school has a magnet program?\" 2005 - 2006 IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN 100 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 c I a0\u0026gt;) s, nc a u 94% Yes  Stipulated Magnets N=106  Magnet Programs N=97 2% 25% 12% 4% No Don't Know In the parents words . . .  Stipulation Magnet School  high standards  small classes, good teachers  more intense and meaningful programs   the reputation that Magnet Schools have attained  The education that magnet schools offer is outstanding.   I love the structured, disciplined atmosphere, the top-notch teachers, the focus on learning ..  Regular School with a Magnet Program The program offers more challenges.  The program prepares my child for the future.  Magnet schools offer more opportunities for their students.\" It is a good school.  Good cultural mix.  \"If thats what makes it a good school.  3. Enrollment Plans if Magnet Program Altered or Discontinued 58  Parents also provided input into whether they would continue to have their child attend their school if it no longer had a magnet program. Some of the interviewed parents elaborated upon their answers with the interviewer. The following graph and list of parent comments provide details.  Parents' Perceptions of Magnet Schools and Programs \" Would you continue to have your child attend the school if it no longer had a magnet program ? 2005-2006 I 100 90 80  4\u0026gt; E 8 w eVn ocu u 70 60 SO 40 30 29% 41% 31% 34% 20 10 9% 6% 31% Yes \"Only If Same Quality\" No Don't Know  Stipulated Magnet School N=112  Magnet Pro^ams N=101 c 0 I M a aa In the parents words . . .  Stipulation Magnet Schools Bl No ... my assumption is that the high standards will decrease.\" The magnet program is what makes us go to that school.  The school just wouldn t be the same.  Not if its not a good school.  Bl  Schools with a Magnet Program Bl  As long as he was served well.   No, magnet schools are better.   Quality of education would change.   I wouldnt have my child anywhere else.  Bl Bl Summary. The data from the parent surveys and interviews provided insight into parents understanding of the magnet schools and programs and their perceptions of their worth. Much of the data also suggest that a deeper investigation into magnet parents perceptions and concerns would assist the district in any future decisions that might impact the schools and programs. Consequently, the following recommendations are offered for consideration: Recommendations II 59 II II 1. Increase the sample size to include more magnet parents, schools and programs and narrow the inquiry to areas that could generate high impact outcomes. 2. Investigate the alternatives that magnet parents would consider if their magnet schools or programs were altered or eliminated and what impact these considerations could have. II II II Students. In late Spring, 2006, the evaluator field tested a nine question student survey on the perceptions that students had about their magnet programs. A cross section of 220 elementary and high school magnet students from five schools shared their input on whether that they were receiving a quality education, if they were learning what they needed to know, and if they liked their magnet classes and wanted to learn as much as possible in them. II II Students also described their magnet programs and how, if at all, they thought their classes were preparing them for the following year. The purpose of the field test was to establish a survey format and language level that both young children and older students could understand and answer with ease. The data are preliminary and no definitive findings were generated from this field test. A larger investigation of students perceptions will be part of the Year II evaluation design. II The graph below displays an example of students perceptions in three areas. II Student Perceptions Student Percentages Reflecting Partial or Full Agreement Spring, 2006 II \"I am getting a quality education.\" I want to learn as much as possible in my magnet classes.  \"In my ma^iet classes, I am learning what I need to know.\" II II II II II II II II 0) 0) O) ce c a 2 9 100 90 so 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Quality Education Learn as Muchas Possible  Stipulation Magnets N = 111  Errbedded Magnets N = 109 Learning Wiatl\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\u003eDreyfus, Jeanne P.\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_600","title":"'Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District,'' 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":["Brooks, Roy G."],"dc_date":["2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Students"],"dcterms_title":["'Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District,'' 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/600"],"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\nDr. Roy G. Brooks, superintendent, Little Rock School District\n2005 Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District Demographics Student Achievement Perceptions Processes Dr. Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent IFounded: Enrollment: Grade Levels: Vision: yG. L^rintendeni Little Rock School District Portfolio I/)/?.! 7-7'1 [ks 1853 View of downtown Little Rock from across the Arkansas River 25,868 (2004-2005) Pre-K (6 weeks) through 12 To become the highest achieving urban school district in the nation. Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 2 of 2 Background Demographic Data Achieve! [t Dau Pen ftual Table of Contents page 3 6 125 197 c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c L c c c c 1 r o o o o Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 3 of 3 Background The City of Little Rock has a population of 184,000 (July 2004 estimate), 40 percent of whom are African-American and three percent or more Hispanic or Latino. This composition contrasts with the general US population, 12.3 per cent of whom are African-American and 12.5 percent Hispanic or Latino\nbut it is more similar to many cities in the southern US. Historically, African-Americans of Arkai and/d natkhave migrated from rural areas and small towns to cities where education (iKerresources were more available to them. This has contributed to Little Ss larger proportion of African-American citizens than many other cities and rowi The median i the US medii a] igh school (hig t^r degrees ci of Little Rock residents is 34.5 years, less than a year younger than ige, and 85.9 percent of those 25 years or older have graduated from J^an the US figure of 80.4 percent). Those with bachelors or ipose 35.5 percent, compared to 24.4 percent of the US, adults.\nr However, the median household income of $37,572 is less than the US median of hearly $42,000. Cil ui is enjoy benefits of the state governments seat here along with a growing university which includes a law school and an expanding university medical Center. The population supports a prosperous symphony orchestra, ballet and opera, several theater groups, an active art museum, and much popular music. Within a half hours drive one can enjoy boating, fishing, hunting, hiking, and other outdoor recreation. Public education in Little Rock began in 1853 under the City Councils governance and the administration of the City Councils Committee on Schools. This Committee hoped that the event was \"... the commencement of a system which will fully meet the wants of the whole community. It The States constitution provides for adequate education for its children, and the General Assembly (state legislature) grants authority to local districts. In 1869, following the war-time suspension of public education, the citizens of Little Rock established a school district and elected a Board of Directors. Frederick Kramer was its first president. J J T) Ti The LRSD enrollment in 1878-79 was 2,142. In the 1890s, the Districts first African-American teacher, Lottie (Charlotte) E. Stephens, a graduate of Oberlin College, taught history and Latin at Union School, where Jefferson G. Ish was principal and later a math teacher. Union was one of three schools for African- American students and their only high school. ILittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 4 of 4 LRSDs flagship, Little Rock (later named Central) High School opened in 1927. In 1957, it was thrust into global spotlight. After Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which stated that the \"separate but equal\" policy was failing to educate equally African-American students, the Little Rock Board of Education planned to integrate its schools. In September 1957, however, hostile opposition, exploited by Governor Orval Faubus, arose against admitting nine African-American students to C c c c Little Ai^ thie A bui itizenXvi Jtock Central High School. President Eisenhower ordered troops of the U.S. Airborne Division to escort the students into the school and federalized Lansas National Guard. During the summer of 1958, the Governor closed the lublic high schools to prevent further desegregation efforts, and Little Rock's :d against the immediate integration of all of the District's schools. The ligh schots(s\\|osed during the 1958-59 school year. City leaders led a recall of the three segreg^ol ^ened school^ iHp^ision of tl District Court. ist School Board members. In the fall of 1959, the School Board mi rus This Supervision continued !! I! P ' i . .W*. 'toI arf To nnger than that of rfner US district, me right is the ,ittle Rock nine, the African-American students who entered Central High School in the fall of 1957, in front of the school at a commemoration of the event. C C T J C u From 1973 until 1987, elementary schools divided into grades 1 to 3 and grades 4 to 6. Some schools began the program for 4-year-olds, Pre-K, in 1989. The new Rockefeller Elementary, built to replace schools demolished by an expressway in central Little Rock, now has programs for infants (6 weeks old) through grade 8. As the result of its suit against Pulaski County Special School District, North Little Rock School District, and Arkansas Department of Education, LRSD annexed 14 schools from the county in 1987. C c c c c In 2000, voters approved a 5-milI tax increase, which raised more than $115 million for much-needed building improvements and expansions and technology upgrades at all schools and district offices and a dedicated building maintenance fund. In Sentember 2002 the U. S. District Court declared the LRSD comnliant, but it c cLittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 5 of 5 ordered program evaluations. In 2004, the Court ordered LRSD to hire a team of professional evaluators who would indefinitely evaluate its programs. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department is one of the few in the nations districts that investigates its educational data scientifically in addition to publishing test results. In 2005, it begins formative evaluations with district and school portfolios. a a a a Li ^5 Vi h'S cewers. \u0026lt;1 I Dr. Roy G. Brooks (in class in the photo to the left), became superintendent in 2004 and set the goal for LRSD to become the highest achieving urban school district. Today, LRSD operates 34 elementary schools (Pre-K - 5), eight middle schools (6 - 8), five high schools (9 - 12), a career-technical center, an accelerated learning center and two alternative learning It employs approximately 4,000 people to educate its nearly 26,000 IFudents. More than 55% of teachers hold a master's degree or higher, and many have been honored with state and national awards, including the National Education Association Salute to Excellence in Education Award, the Milken Family Foundation National Educator Award and the NASSP/MetLife Arkansas Principal of the Year Award. Students, who are offered more Advanced Placement (AP) and Pre-AP courses than any others in the state, attend the finest colleges and universities in the nation (Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale, to name a few). The LRSD regularly has more National Merit Semifmalists than any other school district in the state. A Li Li J J Li J a a a a Sources'. LRSD archives (School Board minutes, annual reports, employee directories, etc.). Hobby, Selma\n1991 research project about the Little Rock School District. \"Constitutional Writes,\" the official newsletter of Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site. Summer 2003\nvol. 1, issue 1. Arkansas Democrat. Monday, May 7, 1979\np. IB. J 'J C Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 6 of 6 ccc c c cc c LC c ccC C c L ccc c. L LL LL C C C 'D Page 7 of 7 Year 2000-01 Number 25,226 Little Rock School District Portfolio 2001-02 J Demographic Data Little Rock School District Student Enrollment by Year 2000-01 through 2004-05 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 J 'J 25,233 25,331 25,278 25,690 School District Student Enrollment 2000-01 through 2005-06 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 8 of 8 c cc Little Rock School District Student Enrollment Percent by Gender 2000-01 through 2004-05 ccc 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 c Male 50.1 50.1 49.9 50.0 50.2 c Female 49.9 49.9 50.1 50.0 49.8 CC 49.9 2000-01 Enrollment by Gender  Male  Female 50.1 49.9 50.1 50.0 49.8 50.1 49.9 50.0 50.2 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 C C C cc ccccccccccc ccccccc c ccc cccc c Little Rock School District Por^'olio Page 9 of 9 lol District Percent Ethnicity  African- American White Hispanic  Other J J 'i Little Rock School District Portfolio 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 - 20.0 - 10.0 0.0 Page 10 of 10 Little Rock School District Student Enrollment by Percent Ethnicity 2000-2001 through 2004-2005 African-American White Hispanic 2000-01 68.2 27.3 2.9 2001-02 68.7 26.8 2002-03 68.9 2003-04 68.7 ter 1.6 3.2 1.7 25.7 25.1 3.6 4.2 2004-05 68.6 24.3 5.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 Enrollment by Percent Ethnicity  African-American  White Hispanic Other C' c c. C\", c\nc\nCT. C. C, C, c: c: c, c\nc\nc, c, Qr .X: Hz HL 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 c c c c c. c, c c. c. or. c: c\nc: c, c: c c C'Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 11 of 11 I Little Rock School District  Student Enrollment of Pre-K through Grade 6 2000-01 through 2004-05 Year Grade 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Pre-K 924 1,208 1,257 949 1,292 K 1,933 1,937 2,026 2,003 2,016 Grade 1 2,027 1,995 1,979 2,082 2,057 Grade 2 1,958 1,965 1,906 1,968 1,995 Grade 3 1,933 1,916 1,954 1,920 1,898 '3  '4 Grade 4 1,991 1,893 1,869 1,972 1,888 ide 5 2,001 1,976 1,849 1,840 1,950 G, 1,935 1,959 1,946 1,837 1,834 I1 I Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 12 of 12 Grade 7 8 9 10 11 12 Little Rock School District Student Enrollment of Grades 7 through 12 2000-01 through 2004-05 Year 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 1,797 1,719 2,014 1,814 1,623 1,557 1,880 2,012 1,979 1,821 1,765 1,813 1,964 1,877 1,994 2,031 2,091 2,321 1,736 1,774 1,781 1,825 1,601 1,528 1,561 1,558 1,408 1,387 1,331 1,358  c ccc c C C. c: c: c\ncc C. c: 2400 2200  2000  1800 a 1600  1400 1200 1000 - 3 z 800 600 400 200 0 c: c. c\nc. Little Rock School District Student Enrollment of Grade 7 through Grade 12 2000-01 through 2004-05 1 8  2001-02 9 Ruin 10 II 12  2000-01  2002-03  2003-04  200 c\nc c: c: cc c: c: cc c cccc c: c: C' C' c: c: c: c: c. Little Rock School District Por^blio Page 13 of 13 Little Rock School District Enrollment of Cohorts Starting in Grades K through 3 School Years 2001-01 through 2004-05 Advancing grades K through 3 1 through 4 2 through 5 3 through 6 4 through 7 Starting gradcs/years 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 K (Cohort A) 1 (Cohort B) 1,933 2,027 1,958 1,933 1,995 1,965 1,916 1,893 1,906 1,954 1,869 1,849 1,920 1,972 1,840 1,837 1,888 1,950 1,834 1,797 'J 2200  2000 ' 1800 ' IfiOO - 1400  1200 1000 800  600  400  200 - 0 ' Little Rock School District Student Cohorts A to D 2000-01 to 2005-06 ls5' i2 i is i *SSS\u0026gt; SSo, S-, Illi S Cohort A (K)  2(100-01 Cohort B (Grade 1) 2001-02  2002-03 Cohort C (Grade 2) Cohort D (Grade 3)  2(IO3-(\u0026gt;4 12(X\u0026gt;44)5  Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 14 of 14 - Little Rock School District Enrollment of Cohorts Starting in Grades 4 through 8 School Years 2001-01 through 2004-05 Advancing grades Starting grades/years K (Cohort E) 1 (Cohort F) (Cohort G) 3 (Cdhort H) C' cc C' C CC K through 3 1 through 4 2 through 5 3 through 6 4 through 7 c\n2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 c 1,991 2,001 1,935 1,797 1,976 1,959 1,880 1,765 1,946 2,012 1,813 2,031 1,979 1,964 2,091 1,781 1,877 2,321 1,825 1,558 cc c: c C' c\nC Little Rock School District Student Cohorts E to H 2000*01 to 2005-06 C' c. 1800 - 1600 -! 1200 I I 3 1000  z 800 600 - 400 - I ' 2000 -I 200 -  0 4 Illi Q c: cc c: c: c: c: c: c: Cohon E (Cirsde 4) Cotx^rt F (Grade 5)  2(X)14)2  2(X)2-O3 Cohort G (Grade 6)  2\u0026lt;NI34)4 Cohon H (Grade 7)  2(X)44)S  c c: c c: c. c. c: c\nc\nc: c: 1 J Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 15 of 15 3 1 1 \"J 1 J i 1 '1 'I Little Rock School District Teachers 2000-01 through 2004-2005 e CuC Ho i\u0026gt; I Z 1,800 1,700 1,600 1,500 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 i - 2000-01 2004-05 81% 19% 2000-01 Little Rock School District Gender of Teachers by Percent 2000-01 through 2004-05  Male  Female 81% 82% 81% 81% 19% 18% 19% 19% 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 16 of 16 Bale Little Rock School District Teacher Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) by School 1999-00 through 2004-05 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-2004 2004-05 Elementary 18.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.5 Baseline 18.0 16.0 15.0 16.0 16.5 Booker arver (^cot lale DodX\\ Fair Pari Forest Park Franklin Fulbright 27.0 18.0 24.0 27.0 19.0 13.0 13.0 14.5 27.0 21.0 28.0 16.0 24.0 26.0 20.0 12.0 11.0 14.0 22.0 21.0 29.0 17.0 24.4 27.0 20.0 12.0 12.0 15.0 20.0 22.0 29.0 17.0 24.0 27.0 19.0 13.0 11.0 16.0 21.0 23.0 30.0 18.5 26.0 31.0 17.8 17.5 10.5 19.7 22.0 28.5 c c Ccc C, c\nc c. c c. c: c\nc c: c\nc. cc Geyer Springs Jefferson Xing Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek 15.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.5 IS 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 15.0 20.0 29.0 18.0 18.0 14.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 28.0 16.0 18.0 14.0 15.0 18.0 20.0 28.0 15.0 18.0 15.0 14.0 19.0 19.0 22.5 c 27.0 28.2 c 14.0 17.0 c 17.0 15.0 13.0 20.5 16.0 10.5 c c c Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine 14.0 14.0 24.0 18.0 14.0 14.0 22.0 20.0 13.0 14.4 21.0 13.0 14.0 24.2 Stephens Terry Wakefield 18.0 24.0 16.0 26.0 Washington Watson 30.0 21.0 Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Middle School Dunbar Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Southwest Henderson 13.0 21.0 16.5 15.0 52.4 53.0 51.6 48.0 51.0 22.0 18.0 25.0 21.0 13.0 21.0 15.0 14.0 53.9 54.0 50.6 47.5 53.3 22.0 20.0 26.0 23.0 16.0 27.0 21.0 13.0 21.0 15.0 14.0 52.2 55.0 48.6 47.0 53.0 20.0 16.0 26.0 23.0 17.0 27.0 22.0 13.0 21.0 16.0 13.0 51.2 53.0 49.0 47.5 54.0 14.5 13.8 24.0 19.0 26.0 27.5 20.5 30.5 24.0 14.0 23.0 16.5 13.5 51.2 53.0 47.4 47.0 53.1 cc ccC c\nLittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 17 of 17 3 1 Little Rock School District Teacher Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) hy School 1999-00 through 2004-05 School \"I -3 'J 'i '1 J Cloverdale Mabelvale Mann High School Central Fair Park cClellan 2000-01 54.0 40.8 58.2 117.5 67.2 89.1 81.6 76.9 0.5 16.5 2001-02 54.0 46.8 59.4 2002-03 51.0 47.2 56.3 2003-2004 54.0 49.3 2004-05 51.1 48.8 59.7 59.6 121.0 64.0 114.5 64.2 93.1 81.3 77.6 17.0 17.5 86.6 71.8 71.6 16.0 14.0 12.5 123.4 70.5 89.6 75.8 73.7 19.0 13.0 135.4 77.5 87.6 70.5 75.4 14.5 20.0 15.0 13.5 '2Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 18 of 18 School Elementary Badgett Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Total 1 2 3 4 5 K 42 36 23 20 n 21 21 33 31 27 22 19 63 69 54 47 49 40 c c C' ccc c\nC c: c: c. c: c: c: c: Bale Baseline P Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K p Total 17 0 17 c. Booker 1 2 3 4 5 K Total 186 153 339 c 63 42 51 51 42 249 c. 52 45 49 46 0 45 36 336 52 48 44 38 42 0 53 34 311 89 99 106 90 95 65 544 50 44 35 54 14 55 33 327 47 40 39 38 38 6 39 35 282 77 92 113 113 87 88 570 36 48 40 39 14 58 35 321 45 46 45 41 45 5 40 32 299 93 88 108 116 113 94 612 53 35 43 45 0 62 35 324 47 48 45 41 40 0 41 36 298 103 99 86 116 118 83 605 51 48 34 47 0 60 37 319 44 42 45 38 42 0 41 39 291 95 107 104 94 112 92 604 242 220 201 231 28 280 176 1,627 235 224 218 196 207 11 214 176 1,481 457 485 517 529 525 422 2,935 Brady 1 49 67 53 35 47 251 c: c c cc c: cc c c. c C c C c c\nz: z: I 1 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 19 of 19 Little Rock School District \"J Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 School Grade 2 2000-01 54 2001-02 46 2002-03 60 2003-04 58 2004-05 35 'J J Carver Chicot 1 Cloverdale 3 4 5 EE K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K P Total 1 50 54 56 0 64 18 345 80 91 82 88 93 73 507 76 76 87 71 78 0 84 34 506 70 36 44 55 7 59 18 332 78 85 85 84 89 72 493 83 76 72 73 75 19 73 35 506 74 40 35 44 7 55 18 312 83 78 89 87 80 75 492 70 75 74 67 75 18 79 36 494 61 64 52 51 0 59 18 337 87 89 85 89 79 73 502 76 74 73 75 68 0 81 36 483 65 50 40 45 0 64 38 319 82 80 91 84 87 73 497 76 86 79 71 86 0 79 59 536 74 Total 253 240 225 251 14 301 110 1,645 410 423 432 432 428 366 2,491 381 387 385 357 382 37 396 200 2,525 344 1 1 J 'J 1 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total Dodd 1 2 51 49 64 72 58 35 399 32 32 73 57 50 70 65 36 425 30 34 72 56 52 55 80 35 411 29 34 59 55 ,49 42 n 34 381 35 34 58 42 44 43 59 40 360 34 39 313 259 259 282 339 180 1,976 160 173 Brady 3 4 5 30 26 38 26 23 21 35 18 16 30 39 18 36 41 37 157 147 130 Little Rock School District Portfolio School Fair Park Page 20 of 20 Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade EE K P Total 1 2 3 4 2000-01 0 42 18 218 45 33 29 25 2001-02 8 29 17 188 39 35 24 21 2002-03 10 40 18 200 32 37 38 19 2003-04 0 32 18 206 30 25 27 30 2004-05 0 37 37 261 29 25 15 19 Total 18 180 108 1,073 175 155 133 114 Z'.- c\nc\nc c\nC c C Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Fulbright 5 K p Total 1 2 3 4 5 K p Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K p 1 2 3 4 5 EE K p 16 40 36 224 47 52 42 48 57 40 18 304 71 58 68 71 80 0 61 54 463 67 62 72 68 74 0 72 18 22 37 30 208 47 50 48 47 41 53 18 304 63 47 38 58 61 10 60 50 387 71 71 71 13 78 7 11 18 28 40 35 229 68 43 44 48 50 59 17 329 52 59 46 43 47 13 60 54 374 89 67 12 76 69 6 11 18 23 36 35 206 68 65 45 41 51 57 18 345 66 57 56 48 40 0 63 54 384 84 101 71 1^ 74 0 80 18 26 34 38 186 69 58 55 43 35 60 40 360 67 59 54 46 48 0 55 57 386 88 80 94 IZ 83 0 91 40 115 187 174 1,053 299 268 234 227 234 269 111 1,642 319 280 262 266 276 23 299 269 1,994 399 381 380 3i\u0026gt;9 378 13 391 112 Q. c Ccc c c c ccc ccc cC c\nQ. c. C c: C c\nc: C-C c Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 21 of 21 1 Little Rock School District i Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 School Grade Total 2000-01 433 2001-02 466 2002-03 474 2003-04 502 2004-05 554 Total 2,429 Geyer Springs 1 2 46 48 50 49 38 50 47 41 47 41 228 229 'J J Gibbs 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K Total Jefferson 1 2 3 4 5 EE K 50 50 55 53 34 336 60 44 45 46 46 58 299 76 59 72 58 63 0 59 50 52 48 38 33 320 69 60 45 45 46 39 304 63 72 66 76 51 7 56 47 51 48 40 34 308 45 64 65 47 47 40 308 53 63 69 68 n 7 60 48 53 51 40 34 314 46 45 68 67 48 40 314 63 67 67 69 59 0 60 41 44 47 39 38 297 45 44 45 65 71 41 311 60 60 73 68 66 0 62 236 250 249 210 173 1,575 265 257 268 270 258 218 1,536 315 321 347 339 316 14 297 'J a J P Total 17 404 18 409 18 415 18 403 40 429 111 2,060 King King Mabelvale 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 .. 85 98 91 93 72 85 71 595 50 51 53 66 81 87 86 76 87 82 70 569 35 42 34 37 76 80 83 88 62 96 68 553 38 35 38 35 87 79 . 84 88 86 86 71 581 40 40 37 40 98 90 75 84 87 90 80 604 35 39 33 36 427 434 419 429 394 439 360 2,902 198 207 195 214Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 22 of 22 School McDermott Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade 5 EE K P Total 1 2 3 2000-01 59 0 47 18 344 60 67 53 2001-02 55 12 37 18 270 62 63 62 2002-03 41 10 39 18 254 59 62 65 2003-04 35 0 38 18 248 64 64 63 2004-05 40 0 38 36 257 63 65 63 Total 230 22 199 108 1,373 308 321 306 c: c\nc\nc: c\nc\nc: c c: cc cc c Meadowcliff Mitchell 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K 63 49 55 18 365 36 33 36 50 46 51 9 261 42 37 47 47 47 0 37 51 58 54 68 294 66 44 50 51 260 c 50 57 55 56 273 C 18 18 18 40 112 c 372 49 42 39 43 49 40 17 279 42 47 47 46 44 14 39 363 47 50 46 ^7 43 60 28 321 46 42 41 43 48 7 39 368 44 49 50 49 40 60 35 327 41 34 39 44 39 0 40 406 51 44 45 56 53 60 40 349 23 24 20 23 29 0 17 1,874 227 218 216 245 231 271 129 1,537 194 184 194 203 207 21 172 Mitchell P Total 18 275 18 297 18 284 otter Creek 1 2 3 4 5 K P 18 255 19 155 91 1,266 75 70 47 52 50 55 18 69 66 68 54 50 72 17 74 65 69 66 55 80 18 89 60 75 68 64 78 18 81 90 67 71 81 80 39 388 351 326 311 300 365 110 CCc c c c cCCC c c\nc C c C I Little Rock School District Porifolio Page 23 of 23 School \"1 \"a J J 'A '2 'J '31 '2 1 Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Romine Stephens Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade Total 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K P Total 1 2 3 2000-01 367 48 48 42 63 51 58 0 310 41 42 35 40 33 36 34 261 49 57 51 49 54 62 88 410 53 41 48 38 30 0 59 35 304 48 40 46 2001-02 396 44 42 50 40 61 44 0 281 40 35 42 37 39 38 36 267 46 49 49 47 49 55 92 387 53 43 36 40 36 1 41 32 282 74 88 71 2002-03 427 45 41 44 52 42 39 18 281 43 44 41 46 47 40 36 297 64 49 57 45 58 58 95 426 36 42 37 30 37 17 52 36 287 100 74 92 2003-04 452 39 42 48 46 54 38 18 285 47 43 33 46 47 40 35 291 56 51 43 44 44 56 98 392 41 39 ,40 41 28 0 51 36 276 87 97 76 2004-05 509 46 38 44 48 50 40 20 286 41 38 31 35 38 39 40 262 66 71 56 51 51 55 103 453 47 47 35 48 47 0 60 37 321 74 69 85 Total 2,151 222 211 228 249 258 219 56 1,443 212 202 182 204 204 193 181 1,378 281 277 256 236 256 286 476 2,068 230 212 196 197 178 18 263 176 1,470 383 368 370Little Rock School District Portfolio School Page 24 of 24 Terry Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade 4 5 EE K P Total 1 2 2000-01 53 48 0 56 35 326 85 68 2001-02 74 73 9 99 52 540 74 83 2002-03 69 84 12 79 54 564 99 72 2003-04 84 65 0 83 54 546 100 86 2004-05 64 69 0 80 58 499 104 97 Total 344 339 21 397 253 2,475 462 406 cc c\nc\ncc c C, c. c. c. c. Wakefield Washington Washington Watson 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K 81 76 87 77. 18 487 58 58 48 53 54 52 17 340 63 77 69 69 84 0 71 53 486 71 82 61 72 54 74 68 82 79 99 18 503 70 59 65 56 56 58 17 381 75 52 61 63 63 13 77 51 455 72 63 81 54 72 77 7^ 65 87 380 71 78 96 18 513 40 55 41 50 50 68 0 304 67 68 53 70 64 16 69 54 461 85 68 73 82 56 79 77 71 97 18 514 78 41 69 55 41 58 0 342 75 61 73 54 71 0 80 51 465 87 73 69 76 77 78 7A 80 96 39 577 71 73 50 79 56 80 40 449 95 79 73 84 71 0 80 80 562 75 7A 61 62 63 80 380 395 460 111 2,594 317 286 273 293 257 316 74 1,816 375 337 329 340 353 29 377 289 2,429 390 360 345 346 322 388 c. c c. ccc cc c cc C c\nc\nc: c: c:  Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 25 of 25 School Western Hills 'J -1 Williams Wilson Wilson Woodruff Middle Cloverdale Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 6 7 2000-01 36 450 33 46 41 45 44 37 18 264 68 67 84 89 88 58 454 58 43 39 46 43 0 43 16 288 39 38 41 34 35 37 53 277 293 237 2001-02 32 451 42 44 46 37 49 39 18 275 61 67 80 87 91 60 446 42 45 40 34 28 15 31 17 252 43 35 32 42 38 40 35 265 288 2002-03 36 479 49 41 48 50 34 39 18 279 64 63 88 90 95 60 460 37 48 43 35 36 22 40 17 278 48 35 40 34 42 39 35 273 273 282 2003-04 36 496 49 46 43 46 54 40 18 296 68 69 83 88 92 59 459 50 39 39 52 42 0 42 18 282 37 ,40 36 34 33 40 35 255 259 262 2004-05 40 455 42 40 37 47 36 40 20 262 68 68 89 88 89 59 461 41 51 38 33 59 0 43 19 284 37 33 37 28 25 36 39 235 233 241 Total 180 2,331 215 217 215 225 217 195 92 1,376 329 334 424 442 455 296 2,280 228 226 199 200 208 37 199 87 1,384 204 181 186 172 173 192 197 1,305 1,346 1,299 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 26 of 26 School Dunbar Forest Heights Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade 8 SM Total 6 7 8 Total 6 2000-01 219 0 749 278 226 239 743 274 2001-02 242 1 808 256 254 226 736 258 2002-03 252 2 809 265 240 221 726 258 2003-04 269 0 790 257 262 234 753 264 2004-05 208 0 682 255 242 249 746 222 Total 1,190 3 3,838 1,311 1,224 1,169 3,704 1,276 c c C C c C' cccc C cc c Henderson Mabelvale Mabelvale 7 8 SM Total 6 7 8 SM Total 6 7 8 SM Total 248 235 0 757 198 184 178 0 560 196 173 145 0 514 Mann 6 7 8 Total 290 272 279 841 256 247 26 787 219 215 193 42 669 205 185 158 14 562 286 276 266 828 268 257 19 802 218 221 207 30 676 219 234 193 17 663 292 289 269 850 248 268 0 780 186 231 246 0 663 195 240 215 0 650 294 285 289 868 230 235 0 687 235 183 211 0 629 209 191 232 0 632 293 294 286 873 Pulaski Heights 6 7 8 SM Total 224 267 249 0 740 Southwest 6 7 8 SM Total 181 182 163 0 526 225 225 241 9 700 213 170 161 15 559 210 250 226 8 694 207 205 173 23 608 222 225 246 257 0 725 159 191 168 0 518 244 239 0 708 149 165 178 0 492 1,250 1,242 45 3,813 1,056 1,034 1,035 72 3,197 1,024 1,023 943 31 3,021 1,455 1,416 1,389 4,260 1,106 1,232 1,212 17 3,567 909 913 843 38 2,703 CccC c: c: c c: c: c\nc: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c\nC' c c: c: c: C  Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 27 of 27 School High Central 'J Hall Metro Parkview Parkview Fair McClellan Garland Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade 9 10 11 12 ss Total 9 10 11 12 SS Total 9 10 12 Total 9 10 11 12 Total 9 10 11 12 SS Total 9 10 11 12 SS Total 6 7 8 2000-01 1 2001-02 1 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Total 593 531 426 509 0 2,059 437 412 319 277 0 1,445 299 293 287 274 1,153 275 212 223 185 0 895 361 294 280 205 0 1,140 1 8 12 626 479 426 401 0 1,932 414 380 340 258 18 1,410 300 282 284 270 1,136 282 246 223 166 24 941 314 289 254 200 16 1,073 9 22 31 656 547 409 387 1 2,000 394 346 319 277 19 1,355 3 4 1 8 300 284 277 269 1,130 310 255 220 164 25 974 324 295 230 194 14 1,057 4 23 15 678 574 504 348 0 2,104 391 364 292 271 0 1,318 0 0 1 1 294 290 284 258 1,126 367 271 213 172 0 1,023 326 248 230 196 0 1,000 1 14 18 743 560 482 413 0 2,198 524 354 333 248 0 1,459 301 280 274 253 1,108 362 305 220 171 0 1,058 297 271 183 174 0 925 13 31 39 3,296 2,691 2,247 2,058 1 10,293 2,160 1,856 1,603 1,331 37 6,987 3 4 2 9 1,494 1,429 1,406 1,324 5,653 1,596 1,289 1,099 858 49 4,891 1,622 1,397 1,177 969 30 5,195 28 98 115 I i Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 28 of 28 School LRSD-R ACC Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade 9 10 11 12 SM Total 3 4 5 Total 9 10 11 12 Total 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Total 20 13 6 3 0 63 26 27 35 88 29 59 82 104 274 30 16 8 4 2 122 14 34 33 81 28 44 66 109 247 34 21 6 0 0 103 10 22 67 95 194 32 18 8 3 0 94 3 16 30 82 131 93 45 31 9 0 261 1 10 35 90 136 209 113 59 19 2 643 40 61 68 169 71 151 280 480 982 c ccccc c c C Ccccc c c c\nc c: c: c: c c: c: c: c c. c\nQ~. 1 c\nc: I.. Middle High Districl Elementary Little Rock School District Portfolio Little Rock School District Percentage of Students Qualifying for Free/Reduced Lunch _______________ 2000-01 through 2004-05_______________ Level / Year 2000-01 62% 2001-02 65% 2002-03 66% 2003-04 66% Page 29 of 29 2004-05 67% 54% 57% 60% 58% 63% 27% 51% 33% 54% 34% 56% Free/Reduced Lunch Students 35% 56% 40% 59% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Elementary Middle High District 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 30 of 30 Little Rock School District Student Mobility Number and Percent by School 2000-01 through 2004-05 School Elementary Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park\nJ ForestPgH Fra^iWlrr^ 'Qelier Sprii^ Gi^\\_ Jeffelnon^ King \\ \\ Mabelvale^\\ 2000-01 Number 41 53 20 54 \\39 'WadifcKcliff J ^itch^ffx Otter Cri^ft: Pulaski Hts .. itsell .wkefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 55\\ 43 41 , 14 20 37 Z59 50 62 36 35 42 22 19 86 72 51 56 72 33 20 48 36 Percent 12.2% 17.0% 3.7% 15.7% 2.4% 19.6% 13.5% 17.9% 20.5% 6.9% \\l .9% \\9V/o 4^/o 5.0% 6.2% 12.2% 16.2% 19.2% 22.5% 9.8% 11.3% 16.1% 5.4% 6.3% 26.4% 14.8% 15.0% 11.5% 16.0% 12.5% 4.4% 16.7% 13.0% 2001-02 Number 34 55 35 59 17 47 73 26 56 19 65 39 26 9 24 33 59 68 33 52 40 34 57 21 19 60 67 44 30 76 44 14 65 34 Percent 10.4% 19.5% 6.1% 17.8% 3.4% 9.3% 17.2% 13.8% 26.9% 6.3% 16.8% 8.4% 8.1% 3.0% 5.9% 5.8% 21.9% 18.3% 11.8% 17.5% 10.1% 12.1% 21.3% 5.4% 6.7% 11.1% 13.3% 11.5% 6.6% 16.9% 16.0% 3.1% 25.8% 12.8% 2002-03 Number 49 57 18 78 14 60 70 35 40 15 43 35 36 3 28 32 36 54 50 35 47 38 37 34 20 57 44 65 21 41 34 9 50 33 Percent 15.3% 19.1% 2.9% 25.0% 2.8% 12.1% 17.0% 17.5% 17.5% 4.6% 11.5% 7.4% 11.7% 1.0% 6.7% 5.8% 14.2% 14.9% 15.6% 12.3% 11.0% 13.5% 12.5% 8.0% 7.0% 10.1% 8.6% 21.4% 4.6% 8.6% 12.2% 2.0% 18.0% 12.1% 2003-04 Number 39 51 29 62 16 70 86 45 31 19 60 32 49 3 18 28 24 49 55 16 58 29 37 40 31 75 65 48 25 76 30 6 45 15 Percent 12.0% 17.1% 4.8% 18.4% 3.2% 14.5% 22.6% 21.8% 15.0% 5.5% 15.6% 6.4% 15.6% 1.0% 4.5% 4.8% 9.7% 13.3% 16.8% 6.3% 12.8% 10.2% 12.7% 10.2% 11.2% 13.7% 12.6% 14.0% 5.4% 15.3% 10.1% 1.3% 16.0% 5.9% 2004-05 Number 46 51 39 75 42 82 57 44 31 18 70 41 44 3 23 40 70 55 34 12 46 35 36 61 58 76 81 61 64 55 30 10 38 28 Percent 14.4% 17.5% 6.5% 23.5% 8.5% 15.3% 15.8% 16.9% 16.7% 5.0% 18.1% 7.4% 14.8% 1.0% 5.4% 6.6% 27.2% 13.5% 9.7% 7.7% 9.0% 12.2% 13.7% 13.5% 18.1% 15.2% 14.0% 13.6% 11.4% 12.1% 11.5% 2.2% 13.4% 11.9% Middle Schools Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hts Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Hts Southwest High Schools 97 30 99 73 66 14 45 62 13.0% 4.0% 13.1% 13.0% 12.8% 1.7% 6.1% 11.8% 96 25 111 110 93 10 60 95 11.9% 3.4% 14.1% 16.4% 16.5% 1.2% 8.6% 17.0% 103 34 105 101 47 15 84 74 12.7% 4.7% 13.1% 14.9% 7.1% 1.8% 12.1% 12.2% 90 23 73 85 80 14 65 101 11.4% 3.1% 9.4% 12.8% 12.3% 1.6% 9.0% 19.5% 89 37 82 81 82 10 65 92 13.0% 5.0% 11.9% 12.9% 13.0% 1.1% 9.2% 18.7% c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c: c c c: c: c: c\nc: c: c: c: c O'. c: c: c: (T. c\nc: c:Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 31 of 31 Little Rock School District Student Mobility Number and Percent by School 2000-01 through 2004-05 School ACC Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview All Schools I Total 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 201 82 112 140 106 8 73.4% 4.0% 12.5% 9.7% 9.3% 0.7% 112 118 106 174 114 24 45.3% 6.1% 11.3% 12.3% 10.6% 2.1% 85 113 85 188 103 11 43.8% 5.7% 8.7% 13.9% 9.7% 1.0% 141 104 95 171 95 11 107.6% 4.9% 9.3%  13.0% 9.5% 1.0% 89 133 115 158 103 34 65.4% 6.1% 10.9% 10.8% 11.1% 3.1% I I 11.4% I 2,906 I 11.5% I 2,690 | 10,6% | 2,836 | 11.2% | 3,068 | 11.9% | Little Rock School District A^rage Attendance by Year 2000-01 through 2004-05\ncnt present Average Attendance 100% 90% 0%  80% 70% 60% 50%  40% - 30% - 20% 10% 88% 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 88% 89% 93% 90% 92% I i I t Little Rock School District Student Attendance by Year 2000-01 to 2004-05 89% 93% 90% 92% III 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Little Rock School District Por^'olio Page 32 of 32 Little Rock School District Average Student Days Present by Grade Level 2000-01 to 2004-05 Grade K 1 2 3 4 8 All School Elementary Booker  Bale Brady Badgett McDermott Carver Baseline Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Gibbs Chicot Western Hills Jefferson Cloverdale Dodd Meadowcliff Mitchell King c c c c 2000- 01 Days Present 2000- 01 Percent Rate 2001- 02 Days Present 2001- 02 Percent Rate 2002- 03 Days Present 2002- 03 Percent Rate 2003- 04 Days Present 2003- 04 Percent Rate 2004- 05 Days Present 2004- 05 Percent Rate c c c 156.05 157.78 158.98 159.53 159.42 160.47 159.30 158.49 159.48 151.72 151.65 153.13 153.60 156.91 87.7% 88.6% 89.3% ^9.6% 89.6% 90.2% \\g9.5% \\^% 85.' 85.2/s// 86.0% 86.3% 88.2% 157.85 157.78 159.55 158.80 159.24 159.48 162.47 161.12 160.87 152.89 152.90 151.60 152.60 157.65 88.7% 88.6% 89.6% 89.2% 89.5% 89.6% 91.3% 90.5% 90.4% 85.9% 85.9% 85.2% 85.7% 88.6% 165.38 166.06 166.57 166.5 166.45 167.14 166.72 166.13 165.75 160.36 160.94 161.67 160.32 164.77 92.9% 93.3% 93.6% 93.5% 93.5% 93.9% 93.7% 93.3% 93.1% 90.1% 90.4% 90.8% 90.1% 92.6% . 160.45 160.51 160.92 160.69 161.66 162.78 162.1 160.88 162.16 154.16 154.88 153.73 153.8 159.33 90.1% 90.2% 90.4% 90.3% 90.8% 91.4% 91.1% 90.4% 91.1% 86.6% 87.0% 86.4% 86.4% 89.5% 162.47 162.51 163.18 164.8 164.61 164.48 165.51 165.54 165.62 163.04 163.25 164.95 164.5 163.9 91.3% 91.3% 91.7% 92.6% 92.5% 92.4% 93.0% 93.0% 93.0% 91.6% 91.7% 92.7% 92.4% 92.1% C c C c c c c c c c c c Little Rock School District Average Student Attendance Rates by School 2000-01 to 2005-06 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 c c c Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate C c 161.18 158.02 157.48 143.20 158.39 160.19 157.37 149.60 159.99 160.10 163.98 157.42 159.09 160.38 155.77 158.28 157.84 156.45 161.83 93.2% 91.3% 91.0% 82.8% 91.6% 92.6% 91.0% 86.5% 92.5% 92.5% 94.8% 91.0% 92.0% 92.7% 90.0% 91.5% 91.2% 90.4% 93.5% 161.50 159.57 155.62 149.42 156.83 159.19 154.76 150.67 164.19 159.01 163.34 156.92 161.93 160.86 154.43 156.58 161.51 158.87 164.68 93.4% 92.2% 90.0% 86.4% 90.7% 92.0% 89.5% 87.1% 94.9% 91.9% 94.4% 90.7% 93.6% 93.0% 89.3% 90.5% 93.4% 91.8% 95.2% 165.94 164.57 164.34 0 166.86 167.34 164.61 162.90 168.20 166.86 168.68 165.68 167.70 166.46 165.59 166.99 165.35 166.97 169.06 95.9% 95.1% 95.0% 0.0% 96.5% 96.7% 95.2% 94.2% 97.2% 96.5% 97.5% 95.8% 96.9% 96.2% 95.7% 96.5% 95.6% 96.5% 171.24 163.31 154.12 0 158.92 163.59 155.85 154.03 166.08 99.0% 94.4% 89.1% 0.0% 91.9% 94.6% 90.1% 89.0% 96.0% 97.7% 159.40 165.95 159.66 161.55 162.63 153.20 159.67 160.12 159.09 165.67 92.1% 95.9% 92.3% 93.4% 94.0% 88.6% 92.3% 92.6% 92.0% 95.8% 169.53 163.74 157.19 0 157.76 163.71 159.83 152.33 168.20 157.78 167.35 164.50 165.00 165.84 163.17 159.66 165.45 158.95 170.62 98.0% 94.6% 90.9% 0.0% 91.2% 94.6% 92.4% 88.1% 97.2% 91.2% 96.7% 95.1% 95.4% 95.9% 94.3% 92.3% 95.6% 91.9% 98.6% c c C c c c c c c c c c c c ILittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 33 of 33 Little Rock School District Average Student Attendance Rates by School 2000-01 to 2005-06 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 School Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate LJ Rockefeller 165.06 Geyer Springs Pulaski Hts Rightsell Romine Stephens Washington Williams Wilson Woodruff Mabelvale 158.63 160.18 158.48 156.97 157.85 159.06 164.16 155.19 155.24 154.80 4 Terry Fulbright Otter Creek Wakefield Watson LRSD-R Total 157.48 159.80 159.36 153.64 156.33 150.07 158.43 7^ 95.4% 91.7% 92.6% 91.6% 90.7% 91.2% 91.9% 94.9% 89.7% \\89.7% ' ^5% 92 92 88.8% 90.4% 86.7% 91.6% 165.78 159.74 161.12 155.11 161.79 154.19 159.25 163.85 155.17 157.12 157.16 155.59 159.21 159.26 154.97 155.82 146.72 158.66 95.8% 92.3% 93.1% 89.7% 93.5% 89.1% 92.1% 94.7% 89.7% 90.8% 90.8% 89.9% 92.0% 92.1% 89.6% 90.1% 84.8% 91.7% 166.17 166.09 166.45 165.61 164.57 164.62 165.95 167.82 165.82 165.45 165.67 166.66 167.10 166.38 164.82 165.59 0 166.23 96.1% 96.0% 96.2% 95.7% 95.1% 95.2% 95.9% 97.0% 95.8% 95.6% 95.8% 96.3% 96.6% 96.2% 95.3% 95.7% 0.0% 96.1% 160.40 158.79 165.30 158.63 158.95 159.30 163.16 165.34 158.38 160.03 160.62 161.88 164.00 158.77 152.43 157.08 0 160.99 92.7% 91.8% 95.5% 91.7% 91.9% 92.1% 94.3% 95.6% 91.5% 92.5% 92.8% 93.6% 94.8% 91.8% 88.1% 90.8% 0.0% 93.1% 164.93 160.12 166.20 164.94 164.16 156.39 162.86 168.70 166.01 156.97 159.65 161.33 165.91 165.06 160.50 158.23 0 163.26 95.3% 92.6% 96.1% 95.3% 94.9% 90.4% 94.1% 97.5% 96.0% 90.7% 92.3% 93.3% 95.9% 95.4% 92.8% 91.5% 0.0% 94.4% iddle lOl Mann 161.88 93.6% 164.26 94.9% 167.89 97.0% 164.6 95.1% 165.57 95.7% Dunbar 164.57 95.1% 165.24 95.5% 167.87 97.0% 165.54 95.7% 169.28 97.8% Forest Heights 160.91 93.0% 162.87 94.1% 165.75 95.8% 161.13 93.1% 168.36 97.3% Pulaski Hts 158.72 91.7% 159.20 92.0% 165.78 95.8% 160.08 92.5% 162.41 93.9% Southwest 152.95 88.4% 156.64 90.5% 162.17 93.7% 156.30 90.3% 159.21 92.0% Henderson 158.60 91.7% 160.14 92.6% 165.45 95.6% 162.83 94.1% 167.02 96.5% Cloverdale 155.93 90.1% 163.28 94.4% 168.09 97.2% 160.23 92.6% 168.01 97.1% Mabelvale 157.24 90.9% 159.51 92.2% 166.62 96.3% 163.15 94.3% 167.24 96.7% Garland 108.33 62.6% 118.87 68.7% 129.33 74.8% 114.27 66.1% 111.17 64.3% Total High Schools Central Hall 158.64 154.70 147.55 Metro Parkview Fair McClellan ACC All Schools Total ____0 163.52 156.34 156.42 93.65 152.76 91.7% 89.4% 85.3% 0.0% 94.5% 90.4% 90.4% 54.1% 88.3% 160.81 93.0% 165.70 95.8% 161.20 93.2% 163.60 94.6% 154.85 148.66 ____0 163.55 154.80 158.80 83.74 89.5% 85.9% 0.0% 94.5% 89.5% 91.8% 48.4% 162.90 157.26 52.71 167.95 162.27 164.12 114.19 94.2% 90.9% 30.5% 97.1% 93.8% 94.9% 66.0% 156.48 148.05 46.00 164.94 157.68 155.42 69.36 90.5% 85.6% 26.6% 95.3% 91.1% 89.8% 40.1% 168.29 160.59 0 172.41 168.81 162.14 107.46 97.3% 92.8% 0.0% 99.7% 97.6% 93.7% 62.1% 153.04 88.5% 161.19 93.2% 154.55 89.3% 165.37 95.6%Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 34 of 34 c c School  Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 Ethnicity 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 Elementary Booker Bale Brady Badgett McDermott Carver Baseline Fair Park Forest Park Forest Park A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Total A-A White Hispanic Other A-A A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic c c c Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate c c 163.96 158.32 155.75 143.63 161.18 158.74 160.95 147.14 105.00 158.02 159.75 150.26 155.14 148.11 157.48 145.31 120.92 47.00 143.20 158.20 158.45 160.05 157.69 158.39 161.53 160.03 109.00 159.03 160.19 159.17 155.79 128.36 157.37 150.70 145.89 159.50 149.60 162.54 158.63 157.50 92.1% 164.34 88.9% 87.5% 80.7% 90.6% 89.2% 90.4% 82.7% 59.0% ,88.8% 89.7% 84.4% 87.2% 83.2% 88.5% 81.6% 157.78 157.77 166.18 161.50 159.66 161.04 154.00 158.25 159.57 157.08 148.22 160.00 163.00 155.62 148.97 67.9% 26.4% 80.4% 88.9% 89.0% 89.9% 88.6% 89.0% 90.7% 89.9% 61.2% 89.3% 90.0% 89.4% 87.5% 72.1% 0.0% 88.4% 84.7% 82.0% 0.0% 89.6% 84.0% 91.3% 89.1% 88.5% 156.20 165.50 149.42 158.91 156.45 144.52 154.69 156.83 162.27 155.33 148.50 164.05 159.19 156.39 143.29 162.67 154.76 150.88 148.79 165.33 150.67 163.57 164.49 164.67 92.3% 88.6% 88.6% 93.4% 90.7% 89.7% 90.5% 86.5% 88.9% 89.6% 88.2% 83.3% 89.9% 91.6% 87.4% 83.7% 87.8% 93.0% 83.9% 89.3% 87.9% 81.2% 86.9% 88.1% 91.2% 87.3% 83.4% 92.2% 89.4% 87.9% 80.5% 91.4% 0.0% 86.9% 84.8% 83.6% 0.0% 92.9% 84.6% 91.9% 92.4% 92.5% 167.86 164.09 155.73 169.33 165.94 166.08 145.85 169.21 162.40 164.57 164.43 162.59 169.50 164.34 167.71 165.24 168.42 167.57 166.86 168.80 165.35 168.22 169.07 167.34 164.86 166.87 155.60 153.50 164.61 162.56 163.77 171.00 166.67 162.90 166.82 168.92 168.00 94.3% 92.2% 87.5% 95.1% 93.2% 93.3% 81.9% 95.1% 91.2% 92.5% 92.4% 91.3% 95.2% 0.0% 92.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.2% 92.8% 94.6% 94.1% 93.7% 94.8% 92.9% 94.5% 95.0% 94.0% 92.6% 93.7% 87.4% 86.2% 92.5% 91.3% 92.0% 96.1% 93.6% 91.5% 93.7% 94.9% 94.4% 172.95 169.53 164.95 169.67 171.24 163.71 160.94 170.86 103.75 163.31 155.90 140.05 164.31 125.67 154.12 158.55 161.92 146.77 168.11 158.92 165.10 162.69 164.44 149.56 163.59 155.34 154.43 164.78 158.33 155.85 155.21 148.55 168.00 170.25 154.03 162.84 168.15 164.50 97.2% 95.2% 92.7% 95.3% 96.2% 92.0% 90.4% 96.0% 58.3% 91.7% 87.6% 78.7% 92.3% 70.6% 86.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 89.1% 91.0% 82.5% 94.4% 89.3% 92.8% 91.4% 92.4% 84.0% 91.9% 87.3% 86.8% 92.6% 88.9% 87.6% 87.2% 83.5% 94.4% 95.6% 86.5% 91.5% 172.09 166.81 168.79 157.00 169.53 165.15 147.75 167.36 145.33 163.74 159.25 142.83 163.97 170.75 157.19 157.70 155.76 164.28 158.47 157.76 167.03 161.41 129.73 170.59 163.71 159.00 96.7% 93.7% 94.8% 88.2% 95.2% 92.8% 83.0% 94.0% 81.6% c c. c C c c C 94.5% 92.4% 158.36 167.79 162.33 159.83 155.89 139.23 130.00 156.86 152.33 169.31 167.95 172.75 92.0% 89.5% 80.2% 92.1% 95.9% 88.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 88.6% 87.5% 92.3% 89.0% 88.6% 93.8% 90.7% 72.9% 95.8% 92.0% 89.3% 89.0% 94.3% 91.2% 89.8% 87.6% 78.2% 73.0% 88.1% 85.6% 95.1% 94.4% 97.1% C c c c c c c c c c C C c I I , I c c c c c c C*' c* c c c c I I I I I I I I I ILittle Rock School District Por^'olio Page 35 of 35 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present 2000-01 Percent Rate Other Total Franklin A-A White Hispanic Other Total 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 -J 'J Gibbs Chicot Western Hills Jefferson Cloverdale Dodd Meadowcliff Mitchell A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other 151.00 159.99 160.03 162.50 156.25 171.00 160.10 166.24 162.69 145.71 153.50 163.98 158.66 150.49 157.19 163.08 157.42 159.58 156.69 166.08 167.00 159.09 156.68 163.25 154.50 156.83 160.38 155.71 156.62 155.93 155.50 155.77 160.08 155.21 152.08 84.8% 89.9% 89.9% 91.3% 87.8% 96.1% 89.9% 93.4% 91.4% 81.9% 86.2% 92.1% ^94% 84.5% Total A-A White Hispanic Other 158.28 160.03 152.62 144.29 Total A-A White Hispanic 157.84 156.63 152.64 151.00 88.3% 91.6% 88.4% 89.7% 88.0% 93.3% 93.8% 89.4% 88.0% 91.7% 86.8% 88.1% 90.1% 87.5% 88.0% 87.6% 87.4% 87.5% 89.9% 87.2% 85.4% 0.0% 88.9% 89.9% 85.7% 81.1% 0.0% 88.7% 88.0% 85.8% 84.8% Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate 166.43 164.19 158.84 163.60 161.25 169.00 159.01 164.02 162.37 165.56 163.40 163.34 158.47 152.04 153.30 162.40 156.92 162.12 162.38 155.59 164.50 161.93 157.87 163.14 156.67 169.40 160.86 154.60 158.23 150.70 162.33 154.43 156.03 156.59 163.72 155.00 156.58 162.20 158.80 158.50 171.25 161.51 158.72 166.63 149.00 93.5% 92.2% 89.2% 91.9% 90.6% 94.9% 89.3% 92.1% 91.2% 168.00 168.20 93.0% 91.8% 91.8% 89.0% 85.4% 86.1% 91.2% 88.2% 91.1% 91.2% 87.4% 92.4% 91.0% 88.7% 91.7% 88.0% 95.2% 90.4% 86.9% 88.9% 166.82 167.17 170.00 173.00 166.86 169.16 168.30 163.13 170.89 168.68 165.75 163.88 166.28 168.50 165.68 167.85 166.90 168.86 168.00 167.70 164.71 167.75 167.25 169.88 94.4% 94.5% 93.7% 93.9% 95.5% 97.2% 93.7% 95.0% 94.6% 91.6% 96.0% 94.8% 93.1% 92.1% 156.21 166.08 159.42 154.00 0.00 170.33 159.40 87.8% 93.3% 166.31 168.20 84.7% 91.2% 86.8% 87.7% 88.0% 92.0% 87.1% 88.0% 91.1% 89.2% 89.0% 96.2% 90.7% 89.2% 93.6% 83.7% 166.46 165.91 161.13 164.61 167.00 165.59 167.70 166.71 162.27 166.99 167.71 156.73 164.48 171.00 165.35 167.18 168.00 136.00 t 93.4% 94.7% 93.1% 94.3% 93.8% 94.9% 94.4% 94.2% 92.5% 94.2% 94.0% 95.4% 93.5% 93.2% 90.5% 92.5% 93.8% 93.0% 94.2% 93.7% 91.2% 0.0% 93.8% 94.2% 88.1% 92.4% 96.1% 92.9% 93.9% 94.4% 76.4% 167.60 163.28 167.38 171.42 165.95 160.67 153.48 158.65 169.00 159.66 162.26 157.63 165.75 146.00 161.55 161.40 163.38 167.00 169.75 162.63 152.70 144.13 157.53 158.50 153.20 161.53 154.23 166.40 159.67 160.61 153.48 165.12 172.50 160.12 159.27 144.50 173.00 89.6% 86.5% 0.0% 95.7% 89.6% 94.2% 91.7% 94.0% 96.3% 93.2% 90.3% 86.2% 89.1% 94.9% 89.7% 91.2% 88.6% 93.1% 82.0% 90.8% 90.7% 91.8% 93.8% 95.4% 91.4% 85.8% 81.0% 88.5% 89.0% 86.1% 90.7% 86.6% 93.5% 0.0% 89.7% 90.2% 86.2% 92.8% 96.9% 90.0% 89.5% 81.2% 97.2% 159.32 147.44 174.00 34.50 157.78 170.30 162.48 168.75 173.07 167.35 165.04 162.05 165.60 56.50 164.50 166.57 158.53 162.21 153.50 165.00 165.35 166.01 168.00 173.33 165.84 162.47 160.53 166.70 171.00 163.17 161.95 157.50 156.05 159.66 166.85 154.46 170.75 176.50 165.45 160.45 137.60 0.00 93.4% 94.5% 89.5% 82.8% 97.8% 19.4% 88.6% 95.7% 91.3% 94.8% 97.2% 94.0% 92.7% 91.0% 93.0% 31.7% 92.4% 93.6% 89.1% 91.1% 86.2% 92.7% 92.9% 93.3% 94.4% 97.4% 93.2% 91.3% 90.2% 93.7% 96.1% 91.7% 91.0% 88.5% 87.7% 0.0% 89.7% 93.7% 86.8% 95.9% 99.2% 92.9% 90.1% 77.3% 0.0%Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 36 of 36 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present 2000-01 Percent Rate Other Total King A-A White Hispanic Other Total Rockefeller A-A White Hispanic Other Total 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 Geyer Springs A-A White Hispanic Other Total Pulaski Heights A-A White Hispanic Other Total Rightsell A-A White Total Romine A-A 0.00 156.45 162.18 161.89 167.90 153.14 161.83 165.30 164.38 167.50 171.50 165.06 0.0% 87.9% 91.1% 90.9% 94.3% 86.0% 90.9% 92.9% 92.3% 94.1% 96.3% 92.7% 159.91 \u0026lt;89.8% 152.17 143.11 158.63 158.22 163.15 145.00 160.18 158.45 163.00  White Hispanic Other Total Stephens A-A White Hispanic Other Total Washington A-A White Hispanic Other Total Williams A-A W hite Hispanic Other Total c c c c c c Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate c, 158.48 163.42 141.02 148.97 155.57 156.97 158.17 155.67 151.17 152.00 157.85 159.90 156.37 160.47 162.50 159.06 164.64 164.29 76.00 162.04 164.16 0.00 158.87 166.01 162.81 169.79 165.05 164.68 165.23 166.39 167.80 169.57 165.78 160.21 85.5% 80.4% 0.0% 89.1% 88.9% 91.7% 0.0% 81.5% 90.0% 89.0% 91.6% 89.0% 91.8% 79.2% 83.7% 87.4% 88.2% 88.9% 87.5% 84.9% 85.4% 88.7% 89.8% 87.8% 90.2% 91.3% 89.4% 92.5% 92.3% 42.7% 91.0% 92.2% 155.75 161.79 120.00 159.74 158.89 163.01 166.50 168.00 161.12 155.13 152.50 155.11 164.18 154.02 159.69 163.75 161.79 154.10 146.56 164.50 154.00 154.19 162.56 153.95 155.69 159.86 159.25 166.78 161.04 163.00 158.55 163.85 0.0% 89.3% 93.3% 91.5% 95.4% 92.7% 92.5% 92.8% 93.5% 94.3% 95.3% 93.1% 90.0% 87.5% 90.9% 67.4% 89.7% 89.3% 91.6% 93.5% 94.4% 90.5% 87.2% 85.7% 87.1% 92.2% 86.5% 89.7% 92.0% 90.9% 86.6% 82.3% 92.4% 86.5% 86.6% 91.3% 86.5% 87.5% 89.8% 89.5% 93.7% 90.5% 91.6% 89.1% 92.1% 0.00 166.97 169.71 168.11 170.50 170.44 169.06 167.22 166.56 136.37 169.50 166.17 166.50 164.61 161.53 0.00 166.09 166.64 166.08 171.00 168.78 166.45 165.61 0.00 165.61 167.93 162.17 156.90 148.14 164.57 164.72 162.75 163.25 162.00 164.62 167.66 165.30 158.66 164.04 165.95 169.56 166.14 165.50 165.50 167.82 0.0% 93.8% 95.3% 94.4% 95.8% 95.8% 95.0% 93.9% 93.6% 76.6% 95.2% 93.4% 93.5% 92.5% 90.7% 0.0% 93.3% 93.6% 93.3% 96.1% 94.8% 93.5% 93.0% 0.0% 93.0% 94.3% 91.1% 88.1% 83.2% 92.5% 92.5% 0.00 159.09 165.94 165.62 146.25 165.88 165.67 159.26 161.97 168.75 156.00 160.40 158.61 164.55 153.14 0.00 158.79 162.66 168.12 173.50 163.55 165.30 158.61 165.00 158.63 164.43 145.73 154.65 129.25 91.4% 91.7% 91.0% 92.5% 94.2% 92.9% 89.1% 92.2% 93.2% 95.3% 93.3% 93.0% 93.0% 94.3% 158.95 159.59 159.64 148.94 164.33 159.30 165.50 159.86 159.75 155.68 163.16 165.05 165.91 168.00 164.31 165.34 0.0% 89.4% 93.2% 93.0% 82.2% 93.2% 93.1% 89.5% 91.0% 94.8% 87.6% 90.1% 89.1% 92.4% 86.0% 0.0% 89.2% 91.4% 94.4% 97.5% 91.9% 92.9% 89.1% 92.7% 89.1% 92.4% 81.9% 86.9% 72.6% 89.3% 89.7% 89.7% 83.7% 92.3% 89.5% 93.0% 89.8% 89.7% 87.5% 91.7% 92.7% 93.2% 94.4% 92.3% 92.9% 42.00 158.95 169.86 172.43 153.14 171.12 170.62 163.11 169.11 164.13 171.42 164.93 161.33 144.10 156.60 0.00 160.12 167.30 165.59 172.50 156.63 166.20 164.94 0.00 164.94 165.42 157.11 161.13 170.67 164.16 156.79 152.60 142.20 168.00 156.39 162.43 163.59 165.39 164.00 162.86 169.96 167.06 169.63 168.02 168.70 23.6% 89.3% 95.4% 96.9% 86.0% 96.1% 95.9% 91.6% 95.0% 92.2% 96.3% 92.7% 90.6% 81.0% 88.0% 0.0% 90.0% 94.0% 93.0% 96.9% 88.0% 93.4% 92.7% 0.0% 92.7% 92.9% 88.3% 90.5% 95.9% 92.2% 88.1% 85.7% 79.9% 94.4% 87.9% 91.3% 91.9% 92.9% 92.1% 91.5% 95.5% 93.9% 95.3% 94.4% 94.8% c c* C- c. c c\nc. c\nq: c\nc: c: c: c: c: c: c c c c: c: q: c: c: c: C' cLittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 37 of 37  Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present 2000-01 Percent Rate 2001-02 Days Present 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate I Wilson A-A White Hispanic Other Total Woodruff A-A White  Hispanic Other Total Mabelvale A-A White Hispanic Other Total Terry A-A White Hispanic Other Total Fulbright A-A White Hispanic Other Total Otter Creek A-A White Hispanic Other Total Wakefield A-A White Hispanic Other Total Watson A-A White Watson Hispanic Other Total LRSD-R A-A White Total Total A-A Elementary While 155.48 148.63 169.00 164.67 155.19 155.59 153.44 144.00 155.50 155.24 155.13 154.40 162.00 \u0026lt;91.0% 121.50 154.80 158.67 155.80 154.48 163.37 157.48 157.49 161.28 166.00 162.88 159.80 159.44 160.38 161.06 131.57 159.36 153.43 148.52 160.07 109.75 153.64 156.63 140.82 159.63 172.00 156.33 149.59 152.85 150.07 158.67 158.52 87.3% 83.5% 94.9% 92.5% 87.2% 87.4% 86.2% 80.9% 87.4% 87.2% 87.2% 86.7% 68.3% 87.0% 89.1% 87.5% 86.8% 91.8% 88.5% 88.5% 90.6% 93.3% 91.5% 89.8% 89.6% 90.1% 90.5% 73.9% 89.5% 86.2% 83.4% 89.9% 61.7% 86.3% 88.0% 79.1% 89.7% 96.6% 87.8% 84.0% 85.9% 84.3% 89.1% 89.1% 154.75 162.91 172.25 143.80 155.17 157.63 160.31 117.00 109.50 157.12 159.02 152.20 153.78 157.16 161.59 154.80 138.32 136.94 155.59 157.05 161.00 138.00 151.00 159.21 160.36 157.52 157.75 166.38 159.26 156.44 130.21 154.57 0.00 154.97 157.03 118.29 161.40 110.00 155.82 149.74 114.71 146.72 158.99 158.54 86.9% 91.5% 96.8% 80.8% 87.2% 88.6% 90.1% 65.7% 61.5% 88.3% 89.3% 85.5% 86.4% 0.0% 88.3% 90.8% 87.0% 77.7% 76.9% 87.4% 88.2% 90.4% 77.5% 84.8% 89.4% 90.1% 88.5% 88.6% 93.5% 89.5% 87.9% 73.2% 86.8% 0.0% 87.1% 88.2% 66.5% 90.7% 61.8% 87.5% 84.1% 64.4% 82.4% 89.3% 89.1% 165.61 168.00 166.33 171.25 165.82 165.68 163.35 0.00 166.50 165.45 166.06 163.52 168.86 172.00 165.67 167.53 165.62 167.16 164.65 166.66 166.27 167.52 169.75 169.10 167.10 166.87 166.14 159.33 164.38 166.38 164.73 168.00 165.00 164.00 164.82 165.86 157.08 164.79 0.00 165.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 166.55 165.86 93.0% 94.4% 93.4% 96.2% 93.2% 93.1% 91.8% 0.0% 93.5% 92.9% 93.3% 91.9% 94.9% 96.6% 93.1% 94.1% 93.0% 93.9% 92.5% 93.6% 93.4% 94.1% 95.4% 95.0% 93.9% 93.7% 93.3% 89.5% 92.3% 93.5% 92.5% 94.4% 92.7% 92.1% 92.6% 93.2% 88.2% 92.6% 0.0% 93.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 93.6% 93.2% 157.66 163.59 166.45 161.00 158.38 161.51 146.24 0.00 166.00 160.03 161.79 153.23 167.44 164.83 160.62 162.66 160.27 161.58 164.32 161.88 164.91 163.80 155.67 161.42 164.00 158.13 160.62 151.78 162.50 158.77 150.32 167.14 162.60 0.00 152.43 157.12 152.18 158.57 172.00 157.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 160.61 162.21 88.6% 91.9% 93.5% 90.4% 89.0% 90.7% 82.2% 0.0% 93.3% 89.9% 90.9% 86.1% 94.1% 92.6% 90.2% 91.4% 90.0% 90.8% 92.3% 90.9% 92.6% 92.0% 87.5% 90.7% 92.1% 88.8% 90.2% 85.3% 91.3% 89.2% 84.4% 93.9% 91.3% 0.0% 85.6% 88.3% 85.5% 89.1% 96.6% 88.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 90.2% 91.1% 165.75 165.77 168.75 175.25 166.01 158.63 142.25 159.00 64.00 156.97 162.49 150.53 151.46 111.33 159.65 163.90 161.20 154.51 150.00 161.33 166.63 166.21 168.33 151.29 165.91 165.86 163.57 169.67 149.89 165.06 160.74 163.29 159.11 0.00 160.50 159.06 135.00 163.20 25.00 158.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 163.45 163.42 93.1% 93.1% 94.8% 98.5% 93.3% 89.1% 79.9% 89.3% 36.0% 88.2% 91.3% 84.6% 85.1% 62.5% 89.7% 92.1% 90.6% 86.8% 84.3% 90.6% 93.6% 93.4% 94.6% 85.0% 93.2% 93.2% 91.9% 95.3% 84.2% 92.7% 90.3% 91.7% 89.4% 0.0% 90.2% 89.4% 75.8% 91.7% 14.0% 88.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 91.8% 91.8%Little Rock School District Portfolio School Page 38 of 38 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present Hispanic Other Total 154.30 155.83 158.43 Middle School Mann A-A White Hispanic Other Total Dunbar A-A White Hispanic Other Total Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Southwest Henderson Cloverdale Cloverdale Mabelvale Garland A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A W'hite Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A 2000-01 Percent Rate 86.7% 87.5% 89.0% 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 163.92 159.38 165.81 159.17 161.88 164.51 164.26 162.60 c c c c c c Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate 154.88 156.38 158.66 87.0% 87.9% 89.1% 163.22 166.48 166.23 91.7% 93.5% 93.4% 159.94 161.13 160.99 89.9% 90.5% 90.4% 162.49 157.81 163.26 91.3% 88.7% 91.7% c c C 92.1% 89.5% 93.2% 89.4% 90.9% 92.4% 92.3% 91.3% 169.76 ^5^ 164.57 161.25 160.85 146.88 162.50 160.91 155.62 162.67 155.33 167.50 158.72 155.07 138.22 102.77 0.00 152.95 159.61 152.98 163.00 165.56 158.60 157.61 138.15 151.27 169.13 155.93 157.95 155.45 143.58 165.90 157.24 109.93 92.5% 90.6% 90.4% 82.5% 91.3% 90.4% 87.4% 91.4% 87.3% 94.1% 89.2% 87.1% 77.7% 57.7% 0.0% 85.9% 89.7% 85.9% 91.6% 93.0% 89.1% 88.5% 77.6% 85.0% 95.0% 87.6% 88.7% 87.3% 80.7% 93.2% 88.3% 61.8% 164.94 163.23 167.79 165.14 164.26 166.30 164.28 155.77 166.35 165.24 162.72 164.43 160.71 127.13 162.87 156.19 163.39 143.00 154.89 159.20 156.91 155.10 144.28 0.00 156.64 163.02 149.27 162.00 115.38 160.14 163.30 163.22 162.60 170.67 163.28 161.72 150.36 148.83 167.92 159.51 120.10 92.7% 91.7% 94.3% 92.8% 92.3% 93.4% 92.3% 87.5% 93.5% 92.8% 91.4% 92.4% 90.3% 71.4% 91.5% 87.7% 91.8% 80.3% 87.0% 89.4% 88.2% 87.1% 81.1% 0.0% 88.0% 91.6% 83.9% 91.0% 64.8% 90.0% 91.7% 91.7% 91.3% 95.9% 91.7% 90.9% 84.5% 83.6% 94.3% 89.6% 67.5% 167.92 167.53 170.18 170.80 167.89 168.89 166.37 164.52 168.24 167.87 166.08 165.16 171.92 136.50 165.75 164.80 166.97 170.42 171.20 165.78 162.96 142.80 158.88 169.25 162.17 167.08 161.16 155.42 168.21 165.45 168.83 157.49 166.79 171.83 168.09 167.35 163.65 168.42 171.90 166.62 130.16 94.3% 94.1% 95.6% 96.0% 94.3% 94.9% 93.5% 92.4% 94.5% 94.3% 93.3% 92.8% 96.6% 76.7% 93.1% 92.6% 93.8% 95.7% 96.2% 93.1% 91.6% 80.2% 89.3% 95.1% 91.1% 93.9% 90.5% 87.3% 94.5% 92.9% 94.8% 88.5% 93.7% 96.5% 94.4% 94.0% 91.9% 94.6% 96.6% 93.6% 73.1% 165.58 163.74 156.33 166.02 164.60 167.70 162.77 164.61 158.91 165.54 162.64 155.81 166.65 167.67 161.13 157.17 164.21 167.67 170.71 160.08 156.74 139.41 149.38 167.25 156.30 163.28 157.10 166.51 161.71 162.83 161.62 138.82 158.08 175.00 160.23 165.66 157.09 149.11 135.17 163.15 114.98 93.0% 92.0% 87.8% 93.3% 92.5% 94.2% 91.4% 92.5% 89.3% 93.0% 91.4% 87.5% 93.6% 94.2% 90.5% 88.3% 92.3% 94.2% 95.9% 89.9% 88.1% 78.3% 83.9% 94.0% 87.8% 91.7% 88.3% 93.5% 90.8% 91.5% 90.8% 78.0% 88.8% 98.3% 90.0% 93.1% 88.3% 83.8% 75.9% 91.7% 64.6% 167.07 163.99 162.97 165.89 165.57 170.64 167.66 165.70 165.56 169.28 168.12 168.45 173.10 174.43 168.36 160.46 165.12 167.50 157.08 162.41 159.16 159.80 157.45 174.25 159.21 168.18 160.43 160.48 177.19 167.02 168.53 161.90 166.20 177.83 168.01 169.14 159.41 156.44 167.24 111.15 93.9% 92.1% 91.6% 93.2% 93.0% 95.9% 94.2% 93.1% 93.0% 95.1% 94.4% 94.6% 97.2% 98.0% 94.6% 90.1% 92.8% 94.1% 88.2% 91.2% 89.4% 89.8% 88.5% 97.9% 89.4% 94.5% 90.1% 90.2% 99.5% 93.8% 94.7% 91.0% 93.4% 99.9% 94.4% 95.0% 89.6% 87.9% 0.0% 94.0% 62.4% c c c c C C c c. c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c       Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 39 of 39 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present 2000-01 Percent Rate White Hispanic Other Total Total Middle A-A School White Hispanic Other 59.50 0.00 0.00 108.33 158.57 159.13 151.39 33.4% 0.0% Total 165.36 158.64 0.0% 60.9% 89.1% 89.4% 85.1% 92.9% 89.1% 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 o o Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate 1 110.77 72.50 0.00 118.87 160.87 161.11 157.99 158.30 160.81 62.2% 40.7% 0.0% 66.8% 90.4% 90.5% 88.8% 88.9% 90.3% 89.00 128.75 0.00 129.33 165.90 165.21 163.76 168.27 165.70 50.0% 72.3% 0.0% 72.7% 93.2% 92.8% 92.0% 94.5% 93.1% 106.56 0.00 0.00 114.27 161.49 160.36 160.29 162.68 161.20 59.9% 0.0% 0.0% 64.2% 90.7% 90.1% 90.1% 91.4% 90.6% 107.97 134.00 151.00 111.17 163.39 163.96 164.03 167.36 163.60 60.7% 75.3% 84.8% 62.5% 91.8% 92.1% 92.2% 94.0% 91.9% I t. High Scy^l Central Hall Metro Parkview Fair McClellan McClellan ACC Total High School A-A White 152.55 157.36 85.7% 88.4% Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic 131.81 \u0026lt;74.1% 166.40 154.70 147.87 150.48 131.38 157.85 147.55 0.00 0.00 165.18 161.53 158.43 167.71 163.52 156.04 157.78 150.65 171.17 156.34 157.03 149.28 156.00 162.75 156.42 92.77 94.85 108.13 144.00 93.65 151.95 155.21 138.12 152.51 157.48 93.5% 86.9% 83.1% 84.5% 73.8% 88.7% 82.9% 0.0% 0.0% 92.8% 90.7% 89.0% 94.2% 91.9% 87.7% 88.6% 84.6% 96.2% 87.8% 88.2% 83.9% 87.6% 91.4% 87.9% 52.1% 53.3% 60.7% 80.9% 52.6% 85.4% 87.2% 77.6% 157.77 163.84 154.85 149.87 144.33 147.51 162.25 148.66 0.00 0.00 165.42 161.19 163.83 168.92 163.55 155.05 153.51 151.95 168.67 154.80 159.19 154.69 154.31 0.00 158.80 84.27 86.53 53.00 16.00 83.74 152.60 153.95 148.63 85.7% 88.5% 88.6% 92.0% 87.0% 84.2% 81.1% 82.9% 91.2% 83.5% 0.0% 0.0% 92.9% 90.6% 92.0% 94.9% 91.9% 87.1% 86.2% 85.4% 94.8% 87.0% 89.4% 86.9% 86.7% 0.0% 89.2% 47.3% 48.6% 29.8% 9.0% 47.0% 85.7% 86.5% 83.5% 161.76 164.00 162.70 170.98 162.90 158.91 153.77 148.48 166.71 157.26 52.71 52.71 169.92 166.25 158.48 169.33 167.95 164.33 153.12 163.47 170.08 162.27 164.31 159.32 168.94 172.00 164.12 117.34 103.60 73.67 0.00 114.19 161.46 160.86 153.40 90.9% 92.1% 91.4% 96.1% 91.5% 89.3% 86.4% 83.4% 93.7% 88.3% 29.6% 29.6% 95.5% 93.4% 89.0% 95.1% 94.4% 92.3% 86.0% 91.8% 95.6% 91.2% 92.3% 89.5% 94.9% 96.6% 92.2% 65.9% 58.2% 41.4% 0.0% 154.42 158.42 161.86 164.41 156.48 148.30 147.21 146.53 152.52 148.05 46.00 46.00 166.63 162.48 165.01 169.76 164.94 158.38 153.22 161.39 163.38 157.68 155.81 152-51 143.25 167.50 155.42 67.85 86.8% 89.0% 90.9% 92.4% 87.9% 83.3% 82.7% 82.3% 85.7% 83.2% 25.8% 25.8% 93.6% 91.3% 92.7% 95.4% 92.7% 89.0% 86.1% 90.7% 91.8% 88.6% 87.5% 85.7% 80.5% 94.1% 87.3% 38.1% 167.31 169.14 165.97 173.36 168.29 162.04 152.99 161.10 149.44 160.59 0.00 0.00 173.58 171.20 167.52 175.19 172.41 169.59 164.86 165.52 156.28 168.81 162.49 155.87 162.26 172.25 162.14 107.17 94.0% 95.0% 93.2% 97.4% 94.5% 91.0% 85.9% 90.5% 84.0% 90.2% 0.0% 0.0% 97.5% 96.2% 94.1% 98.4% 96.9% 95.3% 92.6% 93.0% 87.8% 94.8% 91.3% 87.6% 91.2% 96.8% 91.1% 60.2% 64.2% 90.7% 90.4% 86.2% 81.50 129.00 0.00 69.36 153.37 157.03 152.69 45.8% 72.5% 0.0% 39.0% 86.2% 88.2% 85.8% 102.50 119.50 144.50 107.46 164.94 166.72 162.51 57.6% 67.1% 81.2% 60.4% 92.7% 93.7% 91.3%Little Rock School District Portfolio School Grad^, K 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 Page 40 of 40 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present 2000-01 Percent Rate 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 Other Total St] ^ace A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total c c c c c Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate 164.79 152.76 92.6% 85.8% 164.01 153.04 92.1% 86.0% 169.59 161.19 95.3% 90.6% 163.85 154.55 92.1% 86.8% 168.05 165.37 94.4% 92.9% c c c c Little Rock School District c ttendance (Days Present) Averages by Grade Level and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2004-05 2000-01 Days 155.82 Percent 87.5% 157.19 \\88.3% 151.93 . 157.04 156.05 158.09 158.13 151.63 153.44 157.78 159.61 158.14 153.19 157.85 158.98 159.45 160.22 157.32 154.64 159.53 159.21 160.63 156.89 151.50 159.42 160.61 159.77 161.05 164.84 160.47 159.70 158.50 152.98 165.78 159.30 ff.2% 87.7% 88.8% 88.8% 85.2% 86.2% 88.6% 89.7% 88.8% 86.1% 88.7% 89.3% 89.6% 90.0% 88.4% 86.9% 89.6% 89.4% 90.2% 88.1% 85.1% 89.6% 90.2% 89.8% 90.5% 92.6% 90.2% 89.7% 89.0% 85.9% 93.1% 89.5% 2001-02 Days 158.06 157.78 156.87 153.68 157.85 158.62 156.34 154.33 154.46 157.78 159.58 160.01 156.76 158.45 159.55 159.04 158.89 152.99 161.00 158.80 159.65 159.22 154.62 152.04 159.24 160.02 158.47 155.44 163.71 159.48 162.79 161.88 160.99 159.83 162.47 Percent 88.8% 88.6% 88.1% 86.3% 88.7% 89.1% 87.8% 86.7% 86.8% 88.6% 89.7% 89.9% 88.1% 89.0% 89.6% 89.3% 89.3% 85.9% 90.4% 89.2% 89.7% 89.4% 86.9% 85.4% 89.5% 89.9% 89.0% 87.3% 92.0% 89.6% 91.5% 90.9% 90.4% 89.8% 91.3% 2002-03 Days 165.63 165.10 164.26 163.89 165.38 166.00 166.19 165.45 167.56 166.06 167.00 165.62 164.44 168.81 166.57 167.18 164.94 164.48 167.72 166.50 166.87 166.37 159.17 166.89 166.45 167.52 166.71 161.81 171.00 167.14 167.00 165.98 165.27 168.53 166.72 Percent 93.1% 92.8% 92.3% 92.1% 92.9% 93.3% 93.4% 92.9% 94.1% 93.3% 93.8% 93.0% 92.4% 94.8% 93.6% 93.9% 92.7% 92.4% 94.2% 93.5% 93.7% 93.5% 89.4% 93.8% 93.5% 94.1% 93.7% 90.9% 96.1% 93.9% 93.8% 93.2% 92.8% 94.7% 93.7% 2003-04 Days 160.05 161.51 159.18 163.18 160.45 160.37 161.68 160.52 153.49 160.51 159.97 163.41 160.40 161.90 160.92 160.00 162.71 159.33 162.51 160.69 161.61 161.45 161.75 165.47 161.66 162.80 163.38 160.28 157.83 162.78 163.22 159.54 157.04 164.94 162.10 Percent 89.9% 90.7% 89.4% 91.7% 90.1% 90.1% 90.8% 90.2% 86.2% 90.2% 89.9% 91.8% 90.1% 91.0% 90.4% 89.9% 91.4% 89.5% 91.3% 90.3% 90.8% 90.7% 90.9% 93.0% 90.8% 91.5% 91.8% 90.0% 88.7% 91.4% 91.7% 89.6% 88.2% 92.7% 91.1% 2004-05 Days 162.28 163.75 162.16 153.63 162.47 163.00 162.86 159.21 154.05 162.51 164.31 161.74 162.64 145.16 163.18 164.87 164.96 160.62 170.91 164.80 165.06 164.22 162.82 160.10 164.61 164.79 162.86 166.95 166.84 164.48 165.85 164.78 163.92 165.62 165.51 Percent 91.2% 92.0% 91.1% 86.3% 91.3% 91.6% 91.5% 89.4% 86.5% 91.3% 92.3% 90.9% 91.4% 81.6% 91.7% 92.6% 92.7% 90.2% 96.0% 92.6% 92.7% 92.3% 91.5% 89.9% 92.5% 92.6% 91.5% 93.8% 93.7% 92.4% 93.2% 92.6% 92.1% 93.0% 93.0% C c: c c: c. c c c: c c c r c c c c c: c: c c: C' c* c c: c ILittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 41 of 41 Grade 7 Little Rock School District Student Attendance (Days Present) Averages by Grade Level and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2004-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Race A-A White Hispanic Other Total  8 9 10 11 12 A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total School Elementary Booker Bale Brady Badgett McDermott Carver Baseline Days 158.42 158.91 148.81 166.17 158.49 159.38 160.37 151.55 163.48 159.48 150.23 155.73 145.25 165.32 151.72 150.15 156.25 131.71 168.60 151.65 152.24 156.10 132.90 160.60 153.13 154.32 152.33 141.22 164.98 153.60 Percent 89.0% 89.3% 83.6% 93.4% 89.0% 89.5% 90.1% 85.1% 91.8% 89.6% 84.4% % %% 92.9% 85.2% 84.4% 87.8% 74.0% 94.7% 85.2% 85.5% 87.7% 74.7% 90.2% 86.0% 86.7% 85.6% 79.3% 92.7% 86.3% Days 161.26 160.71 161.37 160.87 161.12 161.12 161.32 149.75 157.84 160.87 151.66 155.75 151.32 165.62 152.89 151.80 154.97 152.00 167.72 152.90 151.78 151.42 140.13 163.97 151.60 152.74 152.79 143.08 156.71 152.60 Percent 90.6% 90.3% 90.7% 90.4% 90.5% 90.5% 90.6% 84.1% 88.7% 90.4% 85.2% 87.5% 85.0% 93.0% 85.9% 85.3% 87.1% 85.4% 94.2% 85.9% 85.3% 85.1% 78.7% 92.1% 85.2% 85.8% 85.8% 80.4% 88.0% 85.7% Days 166.53 165.08 163.63 169.15 166.13 166.20 164.90 161.36 166.98 165.75 160.31 160.24 156.23 170.16 160.36 161.04 161.21 154.11 168.67 160.94 162.15 161.50 146.16 169.78 161.67 160.30 160.21 156.66 169.25 160.32 Percent 93.6% 92.7% 91.9% 95.0% 93.3% 93.4% 92.6% 90.7% 93.8% 93.1% 90.1% 90.0% 87.8% 95.6% 90.1% 90.5% 90.6% 86.6% 94.8% 90.4% 91.1% 90.7% 82.1% 95.4% 90.8% 90.1% 90.0% 88.0% 95.1% 90.1% Days 161.47 159.45 159.16 159.82 160.88 161.79 162.62 165.49 164.13 162.16 152.24 159.05 157.00 163.01 154.16 154.19 156.07 151.54 166.75 154.88 152.70 155.62 152.36 162.00 153.73 152.46 156.70 148.67 162.91 153.80 Percent 90.7% 89.6% 89.4% 89.8% 90.4% 90.9% 91.4% 93.0% 92.2% 91.1% 85.5% 89.4% 88.2% 91.6% 86.6% 86.6% 87.7% 85.1% 93.7% 87.0% 85.8% 87.4% 85.6% 91.0% 86.4% 85.7% 88.0% 83.5% 91.5% 86.4% I Days 166.30 162.69 165.72 170.20 165.54 165.54 166.38 162.88 166.71 165.62 162.11 165.56 163.60 166.51 163.04 162.39 165.54 160.79 170.59 163.25 164.06 166.96 159.35 172.10 164.95 163.32 167.18 165.90 160.25 164.50 Little Rock School District Average Student Attendance Rates by School 2000-01 to 2005-06 2000-01 Days Present Percent Rate 2001-02 Days Present Percent Rate 2002-03 Days Present Percent Rate 2003-04 Days Present Percent Rate Percent 93.4% 91.4% 93.1% 95.6% 93.0% 93.0% 93.5% 91.5% 93.7% 93.0% 91.1% 93.0% 91.9% 93.5% 91.6% 91.2% 93.0% 90.3% 95.8% 91.7% 92.2% 93.8% 89.5% 96.7% 92.7% 91.8% 93.9% 93.2% 90.0% 92.4% 2004-05 Days Present Percent Rate 161.18 93.2% 161.50 1 I 158.02 157.48 143.20 158.39 160.19 157.37 91.3% 91.0% 82.8% 91.6% 92.6% 91.0% 159.57 155.62 149.42 156.83 159.19 154.76 93.4% 92.2% 90.0% 86.4% 90.7% 92.0% 89.5% 165.94 164.57 164.34 0 95.9% 95.1% 95.0% 0.0% 171.24 163.31 154.12 166.86 167.34 164.61 96.5% 96.7% 95.2% 0 158.92 163.59 155.85 99.0% 94.4% 89.1% 0.0% 91.9% 94.6% 90.1% 169.53 163.74 157.19 0 157.76 163.71 159.83 98.0% 94.6% 90.9% 0.0% 91.2% 94.6% 92.4%4. Little Rock School District Portfolio School Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Gibbs Chicot Western Hills Jefferson Cioverdaie Dodd Meadowcliff Mitchell JSms______ Rockefeller Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Romine Stephens Washington Williams Wilson Woodruff Mabcivaie Terrv Fulbright Otter Creek Page 42 of 42 Little Rock School District Average Student Attendance Rates by School 2000-01 to 2005-06 2000-01 Days Present 149.60 159.99 160.10 163.98 157.42 159.09 160.38 155.77 158.28 157.84 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05  Wakefield Watson LRSD-R Total Elementary Middle School Mann Dunbar Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Southwest Henderson Cioverdaie Mabelvale Garland Total Middle High School c c c Percent Rate 86.5% 92.5% 92.5% 94.8% 91.0% 92.0% 92.7% 90.0% 91.5% \\91.2% 156.45 ^.4% 161.83 165.06 158.63 160.18 158.48 156.97 157.85 159.06 164.16 155.19 155.24 154.80 157.48 159.80 159.36 153.64 156.33 150.07 158.43 161.88 164.57 160.91 158.72 152.95 158.60 155.93 157.24 108.33 158.64 95 91 92.6% 91.6% 90.7% 91.2% 91.9% 94.9% 89.7% 89.7% 89.5% 91.0% 92.4% 92.1% 88.8% 90.4% 86.7% 91.6% 93.6% 95.1% 93.0% 91.7% 88.4% 91.7% 90.1% 90.9% 62.6% 91.7% Days Present 150.67 164.19 159.01 163.34 156.92 161.93 160.86 154.43 156.58 161.51 158.87 164.68 165.78 159.74 161.12 155.11 161.79 154.19 159.25 163.85 155.17 157.12 157.16 155.59 159.21 159.26 154.97 155.82 146.72 158.66 164.26 165.24 162.87 159.20 156.64 160.14 163.28 159.51 118.87 160.81 Percent Rate 87.1% 94.9% 91.9% 94.4% 90.7% 93.6% 93.0% 89.3% 90.5% 93.4% 91.8% 95.2% 95.8% 92.3% 93.1% 89.7% 93.5% 89.1% 92.1% 94.7% 89.7% 90.8% 90.8% 89.9% 92.0% 92.1% 89.6% 90.1% 84.8% 91.7% 94.9% 95.5% 94.1% 92.0% 90.5% 92.6% 94.4% 92.2% 68.7% 93.0% Days Present 162.90 168.20 166.86 168.68 165.68 167.70 166.46 165.59 166.99 165.35 166.97 169.06 166.17 166.09 166.45 165.61 164.57 164.62 165.95 167.82 165.82 165.45 165.67 166.66 167.10 166.38 164.82 165.59 0 166.23 167.89 167.87 165.75 165.78 162.17 165.45 168.09 166.62 129.33 165.70 Percent Rate 94.2% 97.2% 96.5% 97.5% 95.8% 96.9% 96.2% 95.7% 96.5% 95.6% 96.5% 97.7% 96.1% 96.0% 96.2% 95.7% 95.1% 95.2% 95.9% 97.0% 95.8% 95.6% 95.8% 96.3% 96.6% 96.2% 95.3% 95.7% 0.0% 96.1% 97.0% 97.0% 95.8% 95.8% 93.7% 95.6% 97.2% 96.3% 74.8% 95.8% Days Present 154.03 166.08 159.40 165.95 159.66 161.55 162.63 153.20 159.67 160.12 159.09 165.67 160.40 158.79 165.30 158.63 158.95 159.30 163.16 165.34 158.38 160.03 160.62 161.88 164.00 158.77 152.43 157.08 0 160.99 164.60 165.54 161.13 160.08 156.30 162.83 160.23 163.15 114.27 161.20 Percent Rate 89.0% 96.0% 92.1% 95.9% 92.3% 93.4% 94.0% 88.6% 92.3% 92.6% 92.0% 95.8% 92.7% 91.8% 95.5% 91.7% 91.9% 92.1% 94.3% 95.6% 91.5% 92.5% 92.8% 93.6% 94.8% 91.8% 88.1% 90.8% 0.0% 93.1% 95.1% 95.7% 93.1% 92.5% 90.3% 94.1% 92.6% 94.3% 66.1% 93.2% Days Present 152.33 168.20 157.78 167.35 164.50 165.00 165.84 163.17 159.66 165.45 158.95 170.62 164.93 160.12 166.20 164.94 164.16 156.39 162.86 168.70 166.01 156.97 159.65 161.33 165.91 165.06 160.50 158.23 0 163.26 165.57 169.28 168.36 162.41 159.21 167.02 168.01 167.24 111.17 163.60 Percent Rate 88.1% 97.2% 91.2% 96.7% 95.1% 95.4% 95.9% 94.3% 92.3% 95.6% 91.9% 98.6% 95.3% 92.6% 96.1% 95.3% 94.9% 90.4% 94.1% 97.5% 96.0% 90.7% 92.3% 93.3% 95.9% 95.4% 92.8% 91.5% 0.0% 94.4% 95.7% 97.8% 97.3% 93.9% 92.0% 96.5% 97.1% 96.1% 64.3% 94.6% C c c c c c c c C c c c c c r r r c r c C C c c? C c: c* C' c* ILittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 43 of 43 Little Rock School District Average Student Attendance Rates by School 2000-01 to 2005-06 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 School Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Centra] Hall Metro Parkview Fair McClellan ACC Total High School 5^ 154.70 147.55 0 163.52 156.34 156.42 93.65 152.76 .ittle Rock lool ithnicity Elemental^^^ Booker A-A White \u0026lt; Hispanic Other Total Bale A-A White Hispanic Other Total Brady A-A White Hispanic Other Total Badgett Badgett A-A White Hispanic Total McDermott A-A White Hispanic Other A-A Carver A-A While Hispanic Other 89.4% 85.3% 0.0% 94.5% 90.4% 90.4% 54.1% 88.3% 154.85 148.66 0 163.55 154.80 158.80 83.74 153.04 89.5% 85.9% 0.0% 94.5% 89.5% 91.8% 48.4% 88.5% 162.9 157.26 52.71 167.95 162.27 164.12 114.19 161.19 94.2% 90.9% 30.5% 97.1% 93.8% 94.9% 66.0% 93.2% 156.48 148.05 46.00 164.94 157.68 155.42 69.36 154.55 90.5% 85.6% 26.6% 95.3% 91.1% 89.8% 40.1% 89.3% 168.29 160.59 0 172.41 168.81 162.14 107.46 165.37 lol District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 1-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate 97.3% 92.8% 0.0% 99.7% 97.6% 93.7% 62.1% 95.6% 2004-05 Days Present Percent Rate 163.96 158.32 155.75 143.63 161.18 158.74 160.95 147.14 105.00 158.02 159.75 150.26 155.14 148.11 157.48 92.1% 88.9% 87.5% 80.7% 90.6% 89.2% 90.4% 82.7% 59.0% 88.8% 89.7% 84.4% 87.2% 83.2% 88.5% 164.34 157.78 157.77 166.18 161.50 159.66 161.04 154.00 158.25 159.57 157.08 148.22 160.00 163.00 155.62 145.31 120.92 47.00 143.20 158.20 158.45 160.05 157.69 158.39 161.53 160.03 109.00 159.03 81.6% 67.9% 26.4% 80.4% 88.9% 89.0% 89.9% 88.6% 89.0% 90.7% 89.9% 61.2% 89.3% 148.97 156.20 165.50 149.42 158.91 156.45 144.52 154.69 156.83 162.27 155.33 148.50 164.05 92.3% 88.6% 88.6% 93.4% 90.7% 89.7% 90.5% 86.5% 88.9% 89.6% 88.2% 83.3% 89.9% 91.6% 87.4% 83.7% 87.8% 93.0% 83.9% 89.3% 87.9% 81.2% 86.9% 88.1% 91.2% 87.3% 83.4% 92.2% 167.86 164.09 155.73 169.33 165.94 166.08 145.85 169.21 162.40 164.57 164.43 162.59 169.50 164.34 167.71 165.24 168.42 167.57 166.86 168.80 165.35 168.22 169.07 94.3% 92.2% 87.5% 95.1% 93.2% 93.3% 81.9% 95.1% 91.2% 92.5% 92.4% 91.3% 95.2% 0.0% 92.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.2% 92.8% 94.6% 172.95 169.53 164.95 169.67 171.24 163.71 160.94 170.86 103.75 163.31 155.90 140.05 164.31 125.67 154.12 158.55 161.92 146.77 97.2% 95.2% 92.7% 95.3% 96.2% 92.0% 90.4% 96.0% 58.3% 91.7% 87.6% 78.7% 92.3% 70.6% 86.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 89.1% 91.0% 82.5% 172.09 166.81 168.79 157.00 169.53 165.15 147.75 167.36 145.33 163.74 159.25 142.83 163.97 170.75 157.19 157.70 155.76 164.28 94.1% 93.7% 94.8% 92.9% 94.5% 95.0% 168.11 158.92 165.10 162.69 164.44 149.56 94.4% 89.3% 92.8% 91.4% 92.4% 84.0% 158.47 157.76 167.03 161.41 129.73 170.59 96.7% 93.7% 94.8% 88.2% 95.2% 92.8% 83.0% 94.0% 81.6% 92.0% 89.5% 80.2% 92.1% 95.9% 88.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 88.6% 87.5% 92.3% 89.0% 88.6% 93.8% 90.7% 72.9% 95.8% 1Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 44 of 44 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present Percent Rate Total Baseline A-A White Hispanic Other 160.19 159.17 155.79 128.36 90.0% 89.4% Total Fair Park A-A White 157.37 150.70 145.89 Forest Park 2001-02 Days Present Percent Rate 2002-03 Days Present Percent Rate 2003-04 Days Present Percent Rate 2004-05 Days Present Percent Rate  Franklin Gibbs Chicot Western Hills Jefferson Cloverdale c c. c: c: c: c: Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other 159.19 156.39 159.50 149.60 162.54 158.63 157.50 151.00 159.99 160.03 162.50 156.25 171.00 160.10 166.24 162.69 145.71 153.50 163.98 158.66 150.49 157.19 163.08 157.42 159.58 156.69 166.08 167.00 159.09 156.68 163.25 154.50 156.83 160.38 155.71 156.62 155.93 155.50 87.5% 72.1% 0.0% 88.4% 84.7% 82.0% 0.0% 89.6% 84.0% 91.3% \u0026lt;89.1% 88.5% 84.8% 89.9% 89.9% 91.3% 87.8% 96.1% 89.9% 93.4% 91.4% 81.9% 86.2% 92.1% 89.1% 84.5% 88.3% 91.6% 88.4% 89.7% 88.0% 143.29 162.67 154.76 150.88 148.79 165.33 150.67 163.57 164.49 164.67 166.43 164.19 158.84 163.60 161.25 169.00 159.01 164.02 162.37 165.56 163.40 163.34 158.47 152.04 153.30 162.40 156.92 162.12 162.38 93.3% 93.8% 89.4% 88.0% 91.7% 86.8% 88.1% 90.1% 87.5% 88.0% 87.6% 87.4% 155.59 164.50 161.93 157.87 163.14 156.67 169.40 160.86 154.60 158.23 150.70 162.33 89.4% 87.9% 80.5% 91.4% 0.0% 86.9% 84.8% 167.34 164.86 83.6% 0.0% 92.9% 84.6% 91.9% 92.4% 92.5% 93.5% 92.2% 89.2% 91.9% 90.6% 94.9% 89.3% 92.1% 91.2% 93.0% 91.8% 91.8% 89.0% 85.4% 86.1% 91.2% 88.2% 91.1% 91.2% 87.4% 92.4% 91.0% 88.7% 91.7% 88.0% 95.2% 90.4% 86.9% 88.9% 84.7% 91.2% 166.87 155.60 153.50 164.61 162.56 163.77 171.00 166.67 162.90 166.82 168.92 168.00 168.00 168.20 166.82 167.17 170.00 173.00 166.86 169.16 168.30 163.13 170.89 168.68 165.75 163.88 166.28 168.50 165.68 167.85 166.90 168.86 168.00 167.70 164.71 167.75 167.25 169.88 166.46 165.91 161.13 164.61 167.00 94.0% 92.6% 93.7% 87.4% 86.2% 92.5% 91.3% 92.0% 96.1% 93.6% 91.5% 93.7% 94.9% 94.4% 94.4% 94.5% 93.7% 93.9% 95.5% 97.2% 93.7% 95.0% 94.6% 91.6% 96.0% 94.8% 93.1% 92.1% 93.4% 94.7% 93.1% 94.3% 93.8% 94.9% 94.4% 94.2% 92.5% 94.2% 94.0% 95.4% 93.5% 93.2% 90.5% 92.5% 93.8% 163.59 155.34 154.43 164.78 158.33 155.85 155.21 148.55 168.00 170.25 154.03 162.84 168.15 164.50 156.21 166.08 159.42 154.00 0.00 170.33 159.40 167.60 163.28 167.38 171.42 165.95 160.67 91.9% 87.3% 86.8% 92.6% 88.9% 87.6% 87.2% 83.5% 94.4% 95.6% 86.5% 91.5% 94.5% 92.4% 87.8% 93.3% 89.6% 86.5% 0.0% 95.7% 89.6% 94.2% 91.7% 94.0% 163.71 159.00 158.36 167.79 162.33 159.83 155.89 139.23 130.00 156.86 152.33 169.31 167.95 172.75 166.31 168.20 159.32 147.44 174.00 34.50 157.78 153.48 158.65 169.00 159.66 162.26 157.63 165.75 146.00 161.55 161.40 163.38 167.00 169.75 162.63 152.70 144.13 157.53 158.50 92.0% 89.3% 89.0% 94.3% 91.2% c: c: c\nc 96.3% 93.2% 90.3% 86.2% 89.1% 94.9% 89.7% 91.2% 88.6% 93.1% 82.0% 90.8% 90.7% 91.8% 93.8% 95.4% 91.4% 85.8% 81.0% 88.5% 89.0% 170.30 162.48 168.75 173.07 167.35 165.04 162.05 165.60 56.50 164.50 166.57 158.53 162.21 153.50 165.00 165.35 166.01 168.00 173.33 165.84 162.47 160.53 166.70 171.00 89.8% 87.6% 78.2% 73.0% 88.1% 85.6% 95.1% 94.4% 97.1% 93.4% 94.5% 89.5% 82.8% 97.8% 19.4% 88.6% 95.7% 91.3% 94.8% 97.2% 94.0% 92.7% 91.0% 93.0% 31.7% 92.4% 93.6% 89.1% 91.1% 86.2% 92.7% 92.9% 93.3% 94.4% 97.4% 93.2% 91.3% 90.2% 93.7% 96.1% c: c\nc\nc c c c c\nc c c c c c c c c c c c C c: C' C Q- c C CLittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 45 of 45 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Dodd Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total Meadowcliff A-A White Hispanic Other Total Mitchell A-A White Hispanic Other Total King A-A White Hispanic Other Total Rockefeller A-A White Hispanic Other Total Geyer Springs A-A White Geyer Springs Hispanic Other Total Pulaski Heights A-A White Hispanic Other Total Rightsell A-A White Total Romine A-A White Hispanic Other Total Stephens A-A 155.77 160.08 155.21 152.08 158.28 160.03 152.62 144.29 157.84 156.63 152.64 151.00 0.00 156.45 162.18 161.89 167.90 153.14 161.83 165.30 164.38 167.50 171.50 165.06 159.91 152.17 143.11 158.63 158.22 163.15 145.00 160.18 158.45 163.00 158.48 163.42 141.02 148.97 155.57 156.97 158.17 87.5% 89.9% 87.2% 85.4% 0.0% 88.9% 89.9% 85.7% 81.1% 0.0% 88.7% 88.0% \u0026lt;85.8% 84.8% 0.0% 87.9% 91.1% 90.9% 94.3% 86.0% 90.9% 92.9% 92.3% 94.1% 96.3% 92.7% 89.8% 85.5% 80.4% 0.0% 89.1% 88.9% 91.7% 0.0% 81.5% 90.0% 89.0% 91.6% 89.0% 91.8% 79.2% 83.7% 87.4% 88.2% 88.9% 154.43 156.03 156.59 163.72 155.00 156.58 162.20 158.80 158.50 171.25 161.51 158.72 166.63 149.00 0.00 158.87 166.01 162.81 169.79 165.05 164.68 165.23 166.39 167.80 169.57 165.78 160.21 155.75 161.79 120.00 159.74 158.89 163.01 166.50 168.00 161.12 155.13 152.50 155.11 164.18 154.02 159.69 163.75 161.79 154.10 86.8% 87.7% 88.0% 92.0% 87.1% 88.0% 91.1% 89.2% 89.0% 96.2% 90.7% 89.2% 93.6% 83.7% 0.0% 89.3% 93.3% 91.5% 95.4% 92.7% 92.5% 92.8% 93.5% 94.3% 95.3% 93.1% 90.0% 87.5% 90.9% 67.4% 89.7% 89.3% 91.6% 93.5% 94.4% 90.5% 87.2% 85.7% 87.1% 92.2% 86.5% 89.7% 92.0% 90.9% 86.6% 165.59 167.70 166.71 162.27 166.99 167.71 156.73 164.48 171.00 165.35 167.18 168.00 136.00 0.00 166.97 169.71 168.11 170.50 170.44 169.06 167.22 166.56 136.37 169.50 166.17 166.50 164.61 161.53 0.00 166.09 166.64 166.08 171.00 168.78 166.45 165.61 0.00 165.61 167.93 162.17 156.90 148.14 164.57 164.72 93.0% 94.2% 93.7% 91.2% 0.0% 93.8% 94.2% 88.1% 92.4% 96.1% 92.9% 93.9% 94.4% 76.4% 0.0% 93.8% 95.3% 94.4% 95.8% 95.8% 95.0% 93.9% 93.6% 76.6% 95.2% 93.4% 93.5% 92.5% 90.7% 0.0% 93.3% 93.6% 93.3% 96.1% 94.8% 93.5% 93.0% 0.0% 93.0% 94.3% 91.1% 88.1% 83.2% 92.5% 92.5% 153.20 161.53 154.23 166.40 159.67 160.61 153.48 165.12 172.50 160.12 159.27 144.50 173.00 0.00 159.09 165.94 165.62 146.25 165.88 165.67 159.26 161.97 168.75 156.00 160.40 158.61 164.55 153.14 0.00 158.79 162.66 168.12 173.50 163.55 165.30 158.61 165.00 158.63 164.43 145.73 154.65 129.25 158.95 159.59 86.1% 90.7% 86.6% 93.5% 0.0% 89.7% 90.2% 86.2% 92.8% 96.9% 90.0% 89.5% 81.2% 97.2% 0.0% 89.4% 93.2% 93.0% 82.2% 93.2% 93.1% 89.5% 91.0% 94.8% 87.6% 90.1% 89.1% 92.4% 86.0% 0.0% 89.2% 91.4% 94.4% 97.5% 91.9% 92.9% 89.1% 92.7% 89.1% 92.4% 81.9% 86.9% 72.6% 89.3% 89.7% 163.17 161.95 157.50 156.05 159.66 166.85 154.46 170.75 176.50 165.45 160.45 137.60 0.00 42.00 158.95 169.86 172.43 153.14 171.12 170.62 163.11 169.11 164.13 171.42 164.93 161.33 144.10 156.60 0.00 160.12 167.30 165.59 172.50 156.63 166.20 164.94 0.00 164.94 165.42 157.11 161.13 170.67 164.16 156.79 91.7% 91.0% 88.5% 87.7% 0.0% 89.7% 93.7% 86.8% 95.9% 99.2% 92.9% 90.1% 77.3% 0.0% 23.6% 89.3% 95.4% 96.9% 86.0% 96.1% 95.9% 91.6% 95.0% 92.2% 96.3% 92.7% 90.6% 81.0% 88.0% 0.0% 90.0% 94.0% 93.0% 96.9% 88.0% 93.4% 92.7% 0.0% 92.7% 92.9% 88.3% 90.5% 95.9% 92.2% 88.1% I i I tLittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 46 of 46 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present Percent Rate White Hispanic Other Total Washington A-A 155.67 151.17 152.00 157.85 159.90 87.5% 84.9% 85.4% 88.7% 89.8% White Hispanic Other 156.37 160.47 87.8% 90.2% Total 162.50 159.06 91.3% 89.4% Williams A-A White 2001-02 Days Present 146.56 164.50 154.00 154.19 162.56 153.95 155.69 159.86 159.25 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Hispanic Other Total Wilson A-A White Hispanic Other 164.64 164.29 76.00 162.04 164.16 155.48 148.63 169.00 Total 164.67 155.19 Woodruff A-A White Hispanic Other 155.59 153.44 144.00 Total Mabelvale A-A White 155.50 155.24 155.13 154.40 92.5% 92.3% 42.7% \u0026lt;91.0% 92.2% 87.3% 83.5% 94.9% 92.5% 87.2% 87.4% 86.2% 80.9% 87.4% 87.2% 87.2% 86.7% 166.78 161.04 163.00 158.55 163.85 154.75 162.91 172.25 143.80 155.17 157.63 160.31 117.00 109.50 157.12 159.02 152.20  Mabelvale Hispanic Other Total 162.00 121.50 154.80 Terry A-A White 158.67 155.80 Fulbright Otter Creek Wakefield c c c c c Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate c Hispanic Other 154.48 163.37 91.0% 68.3% 87.0% 89.1% 87.5% 86.8% 91.8% 153.78 157.16 161.59 154.80 138.32 136.94 82.3% 92.4% 86.5% 86.6% 91.3% 86.5% 87.5% 89.8% 89.5% 93.7% 90.5% 91.6% 89.1% 92.1% 86.9% 91.5% 96.8% 80.8% 87.2% 88.6% 90.1% 65.7% 61.5% 88.3% 89.3% 85.5% 86.4% 0.0% 88.3% 90.8% 87.0% 77.7% 76.9% 162.75 163.25 Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A 157.48 157.49 161.28 166.00 162.88 159.80 159.44 160.38 161.06 131.57 159.36 153.43 88.5% 88.5% 90.6% 93.3% 91.5% 89.8% 89.6% 90.1% 90.5% 73.9% 89.5% 86.2% 155.59 157.05 161.00 138.00 151.00 159.21 160.36 157.52 157.75 166.38 159.26 156.44 87.4% 88.2% 90.4% 77.5% 84.8% 89.4% 90.1% 88.5% 88.6% 93.5% 89.5% 87.9% 162.00 164.62 167.66 165.30 158.66 164.04 165.95 169.56 166.14 165.50 165.50 167.82 165.61 168.00 166.33 171.25 165.82 165.68 163.35 0.00 166.50 165.45 166.06 163.52 168.86 172.00 165.67 167.53 165.62 167.16 164.65 166.66 166.27 167.52 169.75 169.10 167.10 166.87 166.14 159.33 164.38 166.38 164.73 91.4% 91.7% 91.0% 92.5% 94.2% 92.9% 89.1% 92.2% 93.2% 95.3% 93.3% 93.0% 93.0% 94.3% 93.0% 94.4% 93.4% 96.2% 93.2% 93.1% 91.8% 0.0% 93.5% 92.9% 93.3% 91.9% 94.9% 96.6% 93.1% 94.1% 93.0% 93.9% 92.5% 93.6% 93.4% 94.1% 95.4% 95.0% 93.9% 93.7% 93.3% 89.5% 92.3% 93.5% 92.5% 159.64 148.94 164.33 159.30 165.50 159.86 159.75 155.68 163.16 165.05 165.91 168.00 164.31 165.34 157.66 163.59 166.45 161.00 158.38 161.51 146.24 0.00 166.00 160.03 161.79 153.23 167.44 164.83 160.62 162.66 160.27 161.58 164.32 161.88 164.91 163.80 155.67 161.42 164.00 158.13 160.62 151.78 162.50 158.77 150.32 89.7% 83.7% 92.3% 89.5% 93.0% 89.8% 89.7% 87.5% 91.7% 92.7% 93.2% 94.4% 92.3% 92.9% 88.6% 91.9% 93.5% 90.4% 89.0% 90.7% 82.2% 0.0% 93.3% 89.9% 90.9% 86.1% 94.1% 92.6% 90.2% 91.4% 90.0% 90.8% 92.3% 90.9% 92.6% 92.0% 87.5% 90.7% 92.1% 88.8% 90.2% 85.3% 91.3% 89.2% 84.4% 152.60 142.20 168.00 156.39 162.43 163.59 165.39 164.00 162.86 169.96 167.06 169.63 168.02 168.70 165.75 165.77 168.75 175.25 166.01 158.63 142.25 159.00 64.00 156.97 162.49 150.53 151.46 111.33 159.65 163.90 161.20 154.51 150.00 161.33 166.63 166.21 168.33 151.29 165.91 165.86 163.57 169.67 149.89 165.06 160.74 85.7% 79.9% 94.4% 87.9% 91.3% 91.9% 92.9% 92.1% 91.5% 95.5% 93.9% 95.3% 94.4% 94.8% 93.1% 93.1% 94.8% 98.5% 93.3% 89.1% 79.9% 89.3% 36.0% 88.2% 91.3% 84.6% 85.1% 62.5% 89.7% 92.1% 90.6% 86.8% 84.3% 90.6% 93.6% 93.4% 94.6% 85.0% 93.2% 93.2% 91.9% 95.3% 84.2% 92.7% 90.3% c c c c c c c c c c c c\nc c: c c c c c c r C c c c c: c Q' or. c cLittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 47 of 47 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate  White 148.52 Hispanic Other 160.07 109.75 Total Watson A-A White Hispanic Other Total LRSD-R A-A White Total Total A-A Elementary School White Hispanic Other Total 153.64 156.63 140.82 159.63 172.00 156.33 149.59 152.85 150.07 158.67 158.52 154.30 155.83 158.43 83.4% 89.9% 130.21 154.57 61.7% 86.3% 88.0% 79.1% 89.7% 96.6% 87.8% 84.0% 85.9% 84.3% \u0026lt;89.1% 89.1% 86.7% 87.5% 89.0% 0.00 154.97 157.03 118.29 161.40 110.00 155.82 149.74 114.71 146.72 158.99 158.54 154.88 156.38 158.66 73.2% 86.8% 0.0% 87.1% 88.2% 66.5% 90.7% 61.8% 87.5% 84.1% 64.4% 82.4% 89.3% 89.1% 87.0% 87.9% 89.1% 168.00 165.00 164.00 164.82 165.86 157.08 164.79 0.00 165.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 166.55 165.86 163.22 166.48 166.23 94.4% 92.7% 92.1% 92.6% 93.2% 88.2% 92.6% 0.0% 93.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 93.6% 93.2% 91.7% 93.5% 93.4% 167.14 162.60 0.00 152.43 157.12 152.18 158.57 172.00 157.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 160.61 162.21 159.94 161.13 160.99 93.9% 91.3% 0.0% 85.6% 88.3% 85.5% 89.1% 96.6% 88.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 90.2% 91.1% 89.9% 90.5% 90.4% 163.29 159.11 0.00 160.50 159.06 135.00 163.20 25.00 158.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 163.45 163.42 162.49 157.81 163.26 91.7% 89.4% 0.0% 90.2% 89.4% 75.8% 91.7% 14.0% 88.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 91.8% 91.8% 91.3% 88.7% 91.7% Lddle School Mann A-A White Hispanic Other Total Dunhar A-A White Dunbar Hispanic Other Total Forest Heights A-A White Hispanic Other Total Pulaski Heights A-A White Hispanic Other Total Southwest A-A White Hispanic Other Total Henderson A-A White 163.92 159.38 165.81 159.17 161.88 164.51 164.26 162.60 169.76 164.57 161.25 160.85 146.88 162.50 160.91 155.62 162.67 155.33 167.50 158.72 155.07 138.22 102.77 0.00 152.95 159.61 152.98 92.1% 89.5% 93.2% 89.4% 90.9% 92.4% 92.3% 91.3% 95.4% 92.5% 90.6% 90.4% 82.5% 91.3% 90.4% 87.4% 91.4% 87.3% 94.1% 89.2% 87.1% 77.7% 57.7% 0.0% 85.9% 89.7% 85.9% 164.94 163.23 167.79 165.14 164.26 166.30 164.28 155.77 166.35 165.24 162.72 164.43 160.71 127.13 162.87 156.19 163.39 143.00 154.89 159.20 156.91 155.10 144.28 0.00 156.64 163.02 149.27 92.7% 91.7% 94.3% 92.8% 92.3% 93.4% 92.3% 87.5% 93.5% 92.8% 91.4% 92.4% 90.3% 71.4% 91.5% 87.7% 91.8% 80.3% 87.0% 89.4% 88.2% 87.1% 81.1% 0.0% 88.0% 91.6% 83.9% 167.92 167.53 170.18 170.80 167.89 168.89 166.37 164.52 168.24 167.87 166.08 165.16 171.92 136.50 165.75 164.80 166.97 170.42 171.20 165.78 162.96 142.80 158.88 169.25 162.17 167.08 161.16 94.3% 94.1% 95.6% 96.0% 94.3% 94.9% 93.5% 92.4% 94.5% 94.3% 93.3% 92.8% 96.6% 76.7% 93.1% 92.6% 93.8% 95.7% 96.2% 93.1% 91.6% 80.2% 89.3% 95.1% 91.1% 93.9% 90.5% 165.58 163.74 156.33 166.02 164.60 167.70 162.77 164.61 158.91 165.54 162.64 155.81 166.65 167.67 161.13 157.17 164.21 167.67 170.71 160.08 156.74 139.41 149.38 167.25 156.30 163.28 157.10 93.0% 92.0% 87.8% 93.3% 92.5% 94.2% 91.4% 92.5% 89.3% 93.0% 91.4% 87.5% 93.6% 94.2% 90.5% 88.3% 92.3% 94.2% 95.9% 89.9% 88.1% 78.3% 83.9% 94.0% 87.8% 91.7% 88.3% 167.07 163.99 162.97 165.89 165.57 170.64 167.66 165.70 165.56 169.28 168.12 168.45 173.10 174.43 168.36 160.46 165.12 167.50 157.08 162.41 159.16 159.80 157.45 174.25 159.21 168.18 160.43 93.9% 92.1% 91.6% 93.2% 93.0% 95.9% 94.2% 93.1% 93.0% 95.1% 94.4% 94.6% 97.2% 98.0% 94.6% 90.1% 92.8% 94.1% 88.2% 91.2% 89.4% 89.8% 88.5% 97.9% 89.4% 94.5% 90.1%Little Rock School District Portfolio School Cloverdale Mabelvale Garland Total Middle School\nh School Central Hall Metro Parkview Fair Page 48 of 48 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 Ethnicity Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Oth(H^ Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other 2000-01 Days Present Percent Rate 2001-02 Days Present Percent Rate 2002-03 Days Present Percent Rate 2003-04 Days Present Percent Rate 2004-05 Days Present Percent Rate c c c: c c c c 163.00 165.56 158.60 157.61 138.15 151.27 169.13 155.93 157.95 155.45 143.58 165.90 157.24 109.93 59.50 0.00 0.00 108.33 158.57 159.13 151.39 165.36 158.64 152.55 157.36 131.81 166.40 154.70 147.87 150.48 131.38 157.85 147.55 0.00 0.00 165.18 161.53 158.43 167.71 163.52 156.04 157.78 150.65 171.17 91.6% 93.0% 89.1% 88.5% 77.6% 85.0% 95.0% 87.6% 88.7% 162.00 115.38 160.14 163.30 163.22 162.60 170.67 163.28 161.72 91.0% 64.8% 90.0% 91.7% 91.7% 91.3% 95.9% 91.7% 90.9% 155.42 168.21 165.45 168.83 157.49 87.3% 94.5% 166.51 87.3% 80.7% 93.2% \u0026lt;88.3% 61.8% 33.4% 0.0% 0.0% 60.9% 89.1% 89.4% 85.1% 92.9% 89.1% 85.7% 88.4% 74.1% 93.5% 86.9% 83.1% 84.5% 73.8% 88.7% 82.9% 0.0% 0.0% 92.8% 90.7% 89.0% 94.2% 91.9% 87.7% 88.6% 84.6% 96.2% 150.36 148.83 167.92 159.51 120.10 110.77 72.50 0.00 118.87 160.87 161.11 157.99 158.30 160.81 152.51 157.48 157.77 163.84 154.85 149.87 144.33 147.51 162.25 148.66 0.00 0.00 165.42 161.19 163.83 168.92 163.55 155.05 153.51 151.95 168.67 84.5% 83.6% 94.3% 89.6% 67.5% 62.2% 40.7% 0.0% 66.8% 90.4% 90.5% 88.8% 88.9% 90.3% 166.79 171.83 168.09 167.35 163.65 168.42 171.90 166.62 130.16 89.00 128.75 0.00 129.33 165.90 165.21 163.76 168.27 165.70 92.9% 94.8% 88.5% 93.7% 96.5% 94.4% 94.0% 91.9% 94.6% 96.6% 93.6% 73.1% 50.0% 72.3% 0.0% 72.7% 93.2% 92.8% 92.0% 94.5% 93.1% 161.71 162.83 161.62 138.82 158.08 175.00 160.23 165.66 157.09 149.11 135.17 163.15 114.98 106.56 0.00 0.00 114.27 161.49 160.36 160.29 162.68 161.20 93.5% 90.8% 91.5% 90.8% 78.0% 88.8% 98.3% 90.0% 93.1% 88.3% 83.8% 75.9% 91.7% 64.6% 59.9% 0.0% 0.0% 64.2% 90.7% 90.1% 90.1% 91.4% 90.6% 160.48 177.19 167.02 168.53 161.90 166.20 177.83 168.01 169.14 159.41 156.44 167.24 111.15 107.97 134.00 151.00 111.17 163.39 163.96 164.03 167.36 163.60 90.2% 99.5% 93.8% 94.7% 91.0% 93.4% 99.9% 94.4% 95.0% 89.6% 87.9% 0.0% 94.0% 62.4% 60.7% 75.3% 84.8% 62.5% 91.8% 92.1% 92.2% 94.0% 91.9% c. c: c: c. c\nc. c. c\nc c. c. c. c c: c c c c c 85.7% 88.5% 88.6% 92.0% 87.0% 84.2% 81.1% 82.9% 91.2% 83.5% 0.0% 0.0% 92.9% 90.6% 92.0% 94.9% 91.9% 87.1% 86.2% 85.4% 94.8% 161.76 164.00 162.70 170.98 162.90 158.91 153.77 148.48 166.71 157.26 52.71 52.71 169.92 166.25 158.48 169.33 167.95 164.33 153.12 163.47 170.08 90.9% 92.1% 91.4% 96.1% 91.5% 89.3% 86.4% 154.42 158.42 161.86 164.41 156.48 148.30 147.21 86.8% 89.0% 90.9% 92.4% 87.9% 83.3% 82.7% 167.31 169.14 165.97 173.36 168.29 162.04 152.99 83.4% 93.7% 88.3% 29.6% 29.6% 95.5% 93.4% 89.0% 95.1% 94.4% 92.3% 86.0% 91.8% 95.6% 146.53 152.52 148.05 46.00 46.00 166.63 162.48 165.01 169.76 164.94 158.38 153.22 161.39 163.38 82.3% 85.7% 83.2% 25.8% 25.8% 93.6% 91.3% 92.7% 95.4% 92.7% 89.0% 86.1% 90.7% 91.8% 161.10 149.44 160.59 0.00 0.00 173.58 171.20 167.52 175.19 172.41 169.59 164.86 165.52 156.28 94.0% 95.0% 93.2% 97.4% 94.5% 91.0% 85.9% 90.5% 84.0% 90.2% 0.0% 0.0% 97.5% 96.2% 94.1% 98.4% 96.9% 95.3% 92.6% 93.0% 87.8% c c c c c c c: c: c: c: c: c: C'  Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 49 of 49 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Total McClellan A-A 156.34 157.03  White Hispanic Other 149.28 156.00 162.75 87.8% 88.2% 83.9% 87.6% 91.4% 154.80 159.19 154.69 154.31 0.00 87.0% 89.4% 86.9% 86.7% 0.0% 162.27 164.31 159.32 168.94 172.00 91.2% 92.3% Total ACC A-A White Hispanic Other Total Total High School A-A White Hispanic Other Total 156.42 92.77 94.85 108.13 144.00 93.65 151.95 155.21 138.12 164.79 152.76 87.9% 52.1% 53.3% 60.7% 80.9% 52.6% 85.4% \u0026lt;87.2% 77.6% 92.6% 85.8% 158.80 84.27 86.53 53.00 89.2% 47.3% 48.6% 29.8% 16.00 83.74 152.60 153.95 148.63 164.01 153.04 9.0% 47.0% 85.7% 86.5% 83.5% 92.1% 86.0% 164.12 117.34 103.60 73.67 0.00 114.19 161.46 160.86 153.40 169.59 161.19 89.5% 94.9% 96.6% 92.2% 65.9% 58.2% 41.4% 0.0% 64.2% 90.7% 90.4% 86.2% 95.3% 90.6% 157.68 155.81 152.51 143.25 167.50 155.42 67.85 81.50 129.00 0.00 69.36 153.37 157.03 152.69 163.85 154.55 88.6% 87.5% 85.7% 80.5% 94.1% 87.3% 38.1% 45.8% 72.5% 0.0% 39.0% 86.2% 88.2% 85.8% 92.1% 86.8% 168.81 162.49 155.87 162.26 172.25 162.14 107.17 102.50 119.50 144.50 107.46 164.94 166.72 162.51 168.05 165.37 94.8% 91.3% 87.6% 91.2% 96.8% 91.1% 60.2% 57.6% 67.1% 81.2% 60.4% 92.7% 93.7% 91.3% 94.4% 92.9% 1 I 1 ILittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 50 of 50 c  Grade Level Pre-K 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 Little Rock School District Rate of Student Attendance by Grade Level and Lunch Status 2000-01 through 2005-06 Lunch Status Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total 2000-01 Percent Days Present 2001-02 Percent Days Present 2002-03 Percent Days Present 2003-04 Percent Days Absent 2004-05 Percent Days Present 86.6% 87.7% 87.0% 86.9% 89.0% 87.7% 88.2% 89.5% 88.6% 89.1% 89.6% 89.3% 89.2% 90.4% 89.6% 88.8% 91.0% 89.6% 89.3% 91.4% 90.2% 88.5% 90.9% 89.5% 87.5% 90.7% 89.0% 87.7% 91.5% 89.6% 83.2% 86.6% 85.2% 87.7% 90.5% 88.8% 87.8% 90.3% 88.7% 87.9% 90.0% 88.6% 89.1% 90.6% 89.6% 88.1% 91.1% 89.2% 89.1% 90.1% 89.5% 88.3% 92.0% 89.6% 90.3% 92.7% 91.3% 89.6% 91.7% 90.5% 89.2% 91.7% 90.4% 84.9% 86.7% 85.9% 92.4% 88.4% 87.9% 93.5% 92.8% 92.3% 94.1% 92.9% 92.7% 94.5% 93.3% 93.4% 93.9% 93.6% 93.3% 94.1% 93.5% 93.1% 94.3% 93.5% 93.6% 94.5% 93.9% 93.4% 94.2% 93.7% 93.0% 93.9% 93.3% 92.2% 94.3% 93.1% 88.7% 91.1% 90.1% 90.9% 89.4% 88.9% 92.8% 90.1% 89.2% 92.3% 90.2% 88.9% 93.4% 90.4% 89.1% 92.5% 90.3% 90.0% 92.5% 90.8% 90.3% 93.4% 91.5% 90.4% 92.1% 91.1% 89.2% 92.0% 90.4% 89.6% 92.8% 91.1% 84.4% 88.4% 86.6% 93.2% 89.8% 90.3% 93.3% 91.3% 90.4% 93.2% 91.3% 90.7% 93.8% 91.7% 91.6% 94.5% 92.6% 91.7% 94.1% 92.5% 91.5% 94.2% 92.4% 92.1% 94.5% 93.0% 92.6% 93.8% 93.0% 91.9% 94.9% 93.0% 90.3% 92.9% 91.6% c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c 10 Paid Total .4Paid Total Paid Total Paid Grade Level Little Rock School District Portfolio Lunch Status Free/Reduced Free/Reduced Free/Reduced Free/Reduced Total 100.0% 80.0% Little Rock School District Rate of Student Attendance by Grade Level and Lunch Status 2000-01 through 2005-06 2000-01 Percent Days Present 2001-02 Percent Days Present 2002-03 Percent Days Present 2003-04 Percent Days Absent Page 51 of51 2004-05 Percent Days Present 83.5% 85.9% 85.2% 85.0% 86.3% 86.0% 87.4% 86.1% 86.3% 87.7% 88.6% 88.2% 84.8% 86.5% 85.9% 85.1% 85.2% 85.2% 88.4% 85.1% 85.7% 88.2% 89.0% 88.6% 89.5% 91.0% 90.4% 91.0% 90.8% 90.8% 92.4% 89.5% 90.1% 92.5% 92.7% 92.6% Attendance by Lunch Status 2000-2001 through 2004-2005 90.0% 85.0% 95.0% ---- Free/Reduced ---- Paid 1 2 3 4 5 Years 86.0% 87.6% 87.0% 85.8% 86.6% 86.4% 87.6% 86.0% 86.4% 88.8% 90.4% 89.5% 89.9% 93.1% 91.7% 91.7% 93.1% 92.7% 93.8% 91.9% 92.4% 91.1% 93.5% 92.1% Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 52 of 52 c: c\nc: c: Little Rock School District c: Number of Student Discipline Referrals by Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Year c: cc Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Prc-K K 1 4 6 8 9 10 11 5 8 4 7 11 38 50 65 106 131 141 904 853 747 1,052 584 286 58 70 90 119 136 187 914 968 727 788 666 369 61 127 71 148 135 215 959 1,078 878 1,018 666 403 83 107 162 115 185 220 772 976 880 1,229 715 456 105 149 158 212 170 275 786 869 827 1,243 720 412 c c: c c c Q, Q. c 185 144 201 258 250 Total 5,147 5,328 6,043 6,165 6,187 12 c ccc c c c c c cc c. c. c. c. Q-. q: c. c: c: c c* c  Little Rock School District Portfolio c 200.0 o  150.0 w O 100.0 a\u0026gt; ra . tn Page 53 of 53 50.0 0.0 c 200.0 oI 150.0 00 o Discipline Referrals per 100 students Grades 4 through 8 1 2000-01 O 100.0 - U)  a: * X 8 6 5 50.0 0.0 $ -.-4 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Year Discipline Referrals per 100 students Grades 9 through 12 X- X- 11 10 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Year Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 54 of 54 Little Rock School District Rate of Student Discipline Referrals by Grade Level Events per 100 enrolled students cc c: f Grade / Year Pre-K K 1 2 3 5 6 9 10 11 12 Total (A o o  ci) oo W) m \u0026lt;u O' 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 2000-01 0.5 2.0 2.5 3.3 5.5 6.6 7.0 46.7 47.5 43.5 52.2 32.2 .'7.6 11.9 20.4 2001-02 0.7 3.0 3.5 4.6 6.2 1.2 9.5 46.7 51.5 41.2 39.5 38.4 23.0 10.2 21.1 2002-03 0.3 3.0 6.4 3.7 7.6 7.2 11.6 49.3 53.6 48.4 50.1 37.5 26.4 14.5 23.9 2003-04 0.7 4.1 5.1 8.2 6.0 9.4 12.0 42.0 49.3 44.8 58.8 40.1 29.2 19.4 2004-05 0.9 8.1 7.4 7.7 10.6 9.0 14.6 40.3 47.4 45.4 66.2 31.0 22.6 16.0 c\nc: c: c: c: 24.4 24.1 c c: c c c\nc c c c c c. c c Discipline Referrals per 100 Students Cohorts of Pre-K through 7th grades 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 3rd to 7th 2nd to 6th 1st to Sth K to 4th  Pre-K to 3rd Year c c: c c c c c c, c c c c  c c Little Rock School District Portfolio o 0^ (A re (Ac re o 3 Ia oo Page 55 of 55 300 0 Discipline Referrals per 100 Students Cohorts of 4th through 12th grades 200 150 100 50 250 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Sth to 12th 7th to 11th 6th to 10th 5th to 9th  4th to Sth Year Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 56 of 56 Little Rock School District Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 c c: c\nc: c: c\nc\nc: Elementary Badgett c: 0 p K 0 0 c: 1 2 3 4 5 Total Bale P K 1 2 3 4 5 EE Total Baseline P K 1 2 3 4 5 EE Total Booker K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Brady P K 1 2 3 4 5 Brady EE 1 7 0 0 0 8 0 5 2 0 0 3 5 15 0 4 1 3 0 2 1 11 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 7 0 4 4 0 23 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 6 2 5 2 0 4 6 19 2 2 2 1 1 I 0 0 0 1 4 0 14 0 10 0 29 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 1 3 2 0 10 1 7 29 0 1 3 2 3 3 8 0 0 2 2 4 1 15 3 27 0 0 1 0 2 1 11 15 0 0 1 1 12 9 23 0 1 1 1 4 1 6 0 5 0 4 5 7 8 29 0 1 1 3 1 2 9 17 0 1 5 1 3 9 19 1 4 1 0 14 3 0 c\nC c\nc c C- C c\nc. c C C c C C c c: c C C c: c C C c c c c c: c: c\nc: 0 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 57 of 57  7) 7) Carver Chicot Little Rock School District Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 Grade Level Total K 1 2 3 4 5 Total p K 1 1 3 4 5 EE Total 2000-01 7 0 0 1 1 1 7 11 0 0 3 2 3 1 0 9 2001-02 I 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Fair Park Forest Park p K 1 2 3 4 5 Total p K 1 2 3 4 5 EE Total P K 1 2 3 4 5 Total p 9 2 4 3 8 7 9 33 0 7 3 4 12 15 15 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 1 9 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 8 0 20 2 5 8 14 19 21 69 0 7 11 5 18 15 24 0 80 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 4 9 0 26 8 3 13 11 10 25 70 0 3 4 22 11 23 34 97 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 8 0 1 2 3 5 3 0 14 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 23 7 II 14 24 3 30 89 1 15 14 16 16 16 32 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 4 5 1 4 5 20 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 6 0 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 58 of 58 cc c Little Rock School District c Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 c cc Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Grade Level K 1 2 3 4 5 Total p K 1 2 3 4 5 EE Total P K 1 2 3 4 5 EE Total p 2000-01 0 5 0 0 I 1 7 0 0 0 8 6 1 11 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2001-02 0 3 1 4 1 2 II 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002-03 2 2 2 2 12 0 20 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003-04 1 0 0 5 1 13 0 6 6 6 8 1 4 32 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 6 3 2004-05 0 0 2 2 2 0 6 1 3 5 3 3 1 9 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 c CC CCcc CCC c ccC CC C CC  K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Gibbs K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Jefferson p 1 0 2 10 5 c 10 2 1 9 6 30 1 3 5 9 6 3 27 0 16 2 5 0 10 33 0 0 1 5 15 9 36 0 4 3 2 5 10 26 2 0 2 6 2 2 19 0 9 9 10 15 13 69 0 0 0 3 6 8 17 0 9 1 5 3 10 34 1 0 1 0 3 10 15 0 C QCcc QCCc c C K 4 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 c CCC 1 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 59 of 59 3 -5 King Little Rock School District Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 Grade Level 1 3 4 5 EE Total P K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 2000-01 1 3 8 1 18 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 7 Mabelvale P 2 K 1 1 1 2 6 3 4 4 4 5 (\u0026gt; EE Total 30 McDermott P 0 K 0 1 0 2 1 3 1 4 4 5 0 Total 6 Meadowcliff p 0 K 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Mitchell P 0 0 1 10 14 25 1 2001-02 r 0 2002-03 1 2003-04 0 2004-05 2 14 2 9 0 29 0 1 2 1 5 0 0 15 0 3 3 3 3 3 17 0 32 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 12 18 I 1 3 4 0 9 1 1 8 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 3 4 6 0 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 6 5 3 3 6 1 24 0 2 1 4 8 0 1 1 5 2 1 0 10 0 0 6 1 1 3 6 17 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 8 0 7 1 19 12 3 0 43 I 1 4 0 7 0 1 0 0 7 5 I 15 2 9 0 3 0 9 10 33 0 0 4 3 6 5 8 26 0 7 1 0 4 2 2 21 0 5 1 1 1 K 3 8 3 1 3 2 1 3 3 6 8 2 5Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 60 of 60 c c c Little Rock School District c Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 c c c Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 EE Total Otter Creek Total 15 41 12 15 46 33 20 20 20 13 20 18 15 46 70 C 3 8 6 2 7 c 4 5 P K 1 1 3 4 5 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 5 4 4 3 0 3 6 0 0 1 5 5 1 0 8 5 6 1 6 2 1 0 5 5 9 c c c c c c c c Pulaski 0 0 0 p Heights c 1 0 0 1 0 K 1 1 3 0 1 11 2 0 2 0 3 5 3 0 1 1 2 1 4 2 0 0 2 4  c C c Total 29 Rightsell 19 II Total Rockefeller Total 13 18 Romine 13 19 13 14 26 81 35 13 12 10 10 59 15 22 43 23 16 16 127 c: c: c: c: c: c? c: c- c\n5 0 2 p 0 K 0 1 2 3 4 5 p K 1 1 3 4 5 p K 1 2 3 4 3 1 0 0 3 8 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 3 6 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 4 0 1 3 2 4 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 8 5 0 1 8 1 3 0 0 3 3 0 9 0 1 5 6 4 8 0 9 5 0 0 1 5 1 4 6 0 0 4 6 1 2 2 0 7 0 0 4 0 7 2 c c c c c c c c c C C c c I1  Little Rock School District Por^'olio Page 61 of 61 .1 1 Little Rock School District   Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level  2000-01 through 2005-06 Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 5 1 1 5 9 7 EE 0 2 Total 4 7 17 20 20 Stephens P 0 K 2 1 2 3 4 5 EE Total Terry P K 1 1 3 4 5 Total Wakefield P K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Washington P K 1 2 3 4 5 EE 2 15 15 7 43 \"o 4 4 1 1 1 15 22 0 0 2 0 o 3 1 6 1 0 I 1 5 1 (, Washington Watson Total P K 1 1 3 15 0 q 1 2 2 y 3 9 2 1 5 15 10 \"o 51 T 5 T Io 4 7 4 33 0 o' 0 2 0 1 9 0 0 1 2 2 q 0 7 0 0 4 0 2 2 6 8 15 4 16 1 58 o 4 4 6 9 4 10 37 3 1 0 0 1 6 11 'o' 0 y 0 0 y 4 1 Io 0 2 1 y 0 1 5 8 14 1 27 7 (\u0026gt;9 T 4 9 4 1 8 1 29 0 o 1 1 7 '9 18 0 3 0 5 q 0 5 13 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 18 1 14 6 ()2 1 14 20 14 15 T 17 89 0 1 y 1 1 4 1 20 3 2 4 15 11 10 47 0 1 0 1 I. 0 0 1 6 4Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 62 of 62 Little Rock School District Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-0S Western Hills Williams Wilson 5 0 2 2 1 0 Total P K 1 2 3 4 5 Total K 1 1 3 4 5 Total P K 1 2 3 4 5 EE Total 8 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 4 4 2 6 13 10 44 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 6 14 0 0 4 1 9 2 5 27 0 3 2 1 3 4 13 0 3 0 8 1 9 1 0 22 8 0 2 10 4 5 3 6 30 1 0 0 5 2 2 10 0 1 0 1 1 10 6 0 19 4 0 3 4 2 3 10 5 27 1 2 4 1 0 2 10 0 2 3 1 0 3 2 11 5 0 8 1 3 7 8 4 32 1 5 4 5 3 8 27 0 0 0 1 0 3 6 10  Woodruff p K 1 2 3 4 5 Total LRSD-R 3 LRSD-R 4 5 Total Total P 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 22 21 23 66 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 12 19 24 55 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 5 11 c c C' c c\nc\nc\nc. c: c: c: c. c\nc\nc\nc\nc c C C C c C C c c c c c C Elementary School K 1 2 3 38 58 61 83 105 50 65 106 20 90 119 127 71 148 107 162 115 149 158 212 c c c  Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 63 of 63 5     \"5 1 Little Rock School District Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 I 2004-05 4 5 EE Total Middle Mann Dunbar Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Southwest Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale 6 7 8 Total 6 7 8 Total 6 7 8 SM Total 6 7 8 SM Total 6 7 8 SM Total 6 7 8 SM Total 6 7 8 SM Total 6 7 8 SM Total 131 141 536 13 42 45 100 128 68 100 296 146 127 108 381 126 137 121 384 91 114 97 302 95 70 64 229 201 204 111 516 98 72 76 246 136 187 6 674 46 75 65 186 112 94 77 283 152 144 107 16 419 111 122 89 3 325 136 91 75 9 311 81 146 81 30 338 129 109 115 I 354 123 142 53 9 327 135 215 8 769 67 107 86 260 no 69 68 247 168 154 102 12 436 107 121 120 4 352 137 132 93 21 383 118 127 102 12 359 129 144 144 2 419 115 157 125 0 397 185 220 879 56 91 100 247 117 101 50 268 133 95 105 333 100 106 122 328 95 no 89 294 92 123 125 340 93 157 136 386 85 167 113 365 170 275 1,080 67 92 236 94 118 78 290 94 79 84 257 68 120 57 245 96 125 120 341 106 no 94 310 104 72 113 289 129 105 126 360Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 64 of 64 Garland Total Little Rock School District Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 Grade Level 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SM Total 6 2000-01 6 19 25 31 21 8 4 114 904 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Middle School 7 8 9 10 11 12 SM Total ACC Hi^l\u0026lt; 9 10 11 12 Total Central 9 10 24 45 65 66 29 16 5 0 250 914 8 1 28 67 38 56 40 9 218 959 26 40 97 31 12 2 209 772 48 78 192 63 47 9 465 786 853 747 31 21 8 4 2,568 3 5 2 1 11 213 64 968 727 66 29 16 5 68 2,793 3 6 4 3 16 174 85  Fair Hall Metro 11 12 SS Total 9 10 11 12 ss Total 9 10 11 12 SS Total 9 4 26 307 124 74 89 30 317 431 222 104 73 830 49 8 316 182 158 53 40 8 441 212 219 150 47 1 629 c c c c c c c c C C c c C C 1,078 878 56 40 9 51 3,071 1 2 11 4 18 270 112 54 35 1 472 183 141 99 17 12 452 311 177 168 75 4 735 0 976 880 97 31 12 2 2,770 0 0 1 5 6 222 141 97 38 498 214 175 81 34 504 333 219 127 104 783 869 827 192 63 47 9 2,793 0 0 1 1 2 222 116 51 51 440 181 147 75 50 453 416 191 134 52 793 C c c C c C c C C c C C c c C C c c c C C C C c c Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 65 of 65 1  Little Rock School District Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06    McClellan Parkview Total High School Grade Level 10 11 12 Total 10 11 12 SS Total 10 11 12 Total 10 II 12 SS Total 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 238 173 52 31 494 12 25 27 20 84 1,021 563 278 181 2,043 118 164 63 30 376 33 34 11 83 722 637 353 139 10 1,861 186 162 47 37 435 11 32 15 33 91 962 626 394 201 20 2,203 338 130 116 48 632 25 19 22 27 93 1,132 684 444 256 2,516 173 161 78 57 469 59 42 26 30 157 1,051 657 365 241 2,314 0 0 0 9 9 9 1 3 5 0 0 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 66 of 66 CCcc Little Rock School District Type and Number of Student Suspensions by School and Grade Level 2000-01 to 2005-06 School Elementary Suspension ___IiE___ Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 C Cccc c c 1 0 5 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 5 3 1 0 10 1 1 Short Term 4 0 4 7 12 3 c S 2 6 7 9 9 C K 0 2 3 0 0 c  Total 19 29 23 19 Booker Long Term Total Bale Expulsion Total 13 12 Short Term EE Total 15 20 25 24 23 Long Term C C CC c Q EE Total Expulsion C C C C C 3 1 2 3 4 5 K 1 2 3 4 5 K 1 2 3 4 5 K P 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 5 5 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 6 0 4 3 0 7 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 9 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 6 4 5 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 c Cccc ccc c c cc c Q C c 7)  Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 67 of 67   )  Little Rock School District Type and Number of Student Suspensions by School and Grade Level 2000-01 to 2005-06     School Suspension Type___ Grade Level 4 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 EE Total Short Term EE Total 20 17 15 Brady Long Term EE Total Badgett Expulsion EE Total Short Term Total Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K P 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K P 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 9 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 3 2 3 3 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 2 0 5 1 0 1 4 2 1 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 3 0 3 1 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 68 of 68 c Little Rock School District Type and Number of Student Suspensions by School and Grade Level 2000-01 to 2005-06 cc School Suspension ___IlEe___ Grade Level 4 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 0 0 cc 5 0 0 K 0 0 c p 0 Total 1 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Expulsion Total McDermott Carver Short Term Long Term Expulsion Short Term Total Total Total 14 19 18 13 10 10 25 25 II 14 22 25 Total II 33 66 69 82 5 0 0 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 I 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 8 7 9 2 0 1 0 0 I 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 2 0 3 2 1 1 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 3 3 6 5 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 cccc C C C cccc c cc cc ccccLcCc c CC cccc   Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 69 of 69   3  Little Rock School District Type and Number of Student Suspensions by School and Grade Level 2000-01 to 2005-06 School Suspension Type___ Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Long Term Total Expulsion '-1 Total Baseline Fair Park Short Term Long Term Expulsion Short Term EE Total EE Total EE Total 10 13    71 \"1 1 3 4 s K 1 2 3 4 5 K 1 2 3 4 5 K P 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 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 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 8 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 i 3 3 0 0 1 1c Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 70 of 70 c Little Rock School District Type and Number of Student Suspensions by School and Grade Level 2000-01 to 2005-06 cc c School Suspension Type Grade Level 4 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 0 1 2 0 2 ccc c 5 0 6 4 2 3 K 0 0 0 2 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 8 9 4 6 1 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc cCc c Long Term Expulsion Total Total Forest Park Short Term 12 Total 19 13 Long Term Total c c c c Expulsion c c c c 5 0 0 0 0 0 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K P 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 7 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 2 1 3 1 2 0 0 9 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 1 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 2 2 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc ccc c C cccc c cc c cc   Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 71 of 71    Little Rock School District Type and Number of Student Suspensions by School and Grade Level 2000-01 to 2005-06  School Suspension ___TjE?___ Grade Level Total 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 i -J Short Term 11 EE 'i Franklin Long Term Expulsion Total EE Total EE Total 27 12 26 24 Gibbs Short Term 15 10 Total 27 36 17 16 15 Long Term Total Expulsion     1 1 3 4 5 K P 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K 1 2 3 4 S K 1 0 0 8 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 9 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 7 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 7 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 5 2 3 5 0 0 1 3 0 1\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\u003eBrooks, Roy G.\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":26,"next_page":27,"prev_page":25,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":300,"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}}]}}