{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_314","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Mathematics/Science''","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":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Mathematics/Science''"],"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/314"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\nMATHEMATICS/SCIENCE0-1 ozm5 zmmTo1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Mathematics/Science Memorandum from Dennis Glasgow to secondary science teachers, Jan. 11, 1999, on ninth grade physics implementation. Memorandum from Dennis Glasgow to principals, Aug. 25, 1999, on the deployment of mathematics/science lead teachers. Mathematics Program Descriptiondocument prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. Science Program Descriptiondocument prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. K-12 Currie ilum Implementation Plandocument prepared to submit to the National Sen ace Foundation in April 2000. CPMSA Staffingdocument prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. Professional Development Plan for Mathematics and Sciencedocument prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. Little Rock CPMSA Strategic Plan, September 2000February 2002document prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. Memorandum from Vanessa Cleaver to eighth grade mathematics teachers. May 9, 2000, on the extended-year Algebra I program. 10. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to a parent, Mar. 23, 2000, providing research base for the middle school mathematics program, the Connected Mathematics Project (CMP). 11. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to elementary and middle school principals in June 14, 2000, Learning Links on the research and theory behind new mathematics curricula\nattached article, Wheres the Balance in Math Instruction? 12. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to parents, Nov. 9, 2000, with information about research behind LRSDs adoption of the elementary mathematics program. 13. E-mail from Debbie Berry to Bonnie Lesley, Nov. 17, 2000, expressing appreciation for attendance at a national conference on new mathematics curriculum. 14. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Feb. 14, 2000, Learning Links on national study on how best to teach mathematics\nattached article from Education Week, Forget Math Feud, Take Broader View, NRC Panel Urges. -/o/ 'Vy -V/-515. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Aug. 23, 2000, Learning Links on standards- based mathematics\nattached article, Spread the Word by Lee Stiff. 16. Research Report on new mathematics curriculum used in decision-making: Preliminary Comparison of Michigan State Wide Testing\nResults in STC Adopted Districts, June 18, 1998. 17. Research Report on Exemplary Promising Mathematics Programs, Eisenhower National Clearinghouse. 18. Research Report on Connected Mathematics as one of the Exemplary Promising Mathematics Programs, Eisenhower National Cleaminghouse 19. Research Report, Middle Grades Mathematics Textbooks: A Benchmarks-Based Evaluation, Project 2061. 20. Research Report, Investigations in Numbers, Data and Space: Validation Study- - Pretest and Posttest Results, Scott Foresman, Jan. 12, 2001.1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICl INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 S. PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 January 11, 1999 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Secondary Science Teachers (ennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science Informational Meeting about Ninth Grade Physics i i 5 1 1 ! The Board has approved high school course offerings for 1999-2000 that include physics as a required course for all ninth grade students. An informational meeting about ninth grade physics including certification and training issues for teachers will be held at 4:00p.m. in room 18 at the IRC on Wednesday, January 13. I know ninth grade physics seems like a drastic move to the casual observer, however, it is based on sound logic. Physics is the most fundamental of all science disciplines. Physics serves as the foundation for learning much of biology, chemistry, and earth science. The reason that physics has traditionally been a senior level course is the high level and amount of mathematics required of students to learn traditional high school physics. Since only 17% of our student population take physics now, some strategy was needed to serve a greater percentage of our students. A committee of teachers discussed the issue and recommended that a new NSF funded program. Active Physics, be used as the first year physics curriculum resource for most students and that the course be moved to the ninth grade. i 1 Active Physics was developed in association with the American Association of Physics Teachers and the American Institute of Physics. The program is designed to be used by students as early as the ninth grade and focuses on the beauty, excitement, and usefulness of physics. It doesnt contain so much math and reading. Each chapter of Active Physics begins with a challenge-develop a sport that can be played on the Moon\nbuild a home for people with a housing crisis\npersuade your parents to lend you the family car\nand so on. The course focuses on physics that is relevant to students everyday life. Everyone should be able to successfully learn physics concepts presented in this manner. I i i 2 Not only should Active Physics be fun for students, it should be exciting and fun to teach. Extensive training and materials and supplies will be provided for each teacher. Since physics teachers are in short supply, the District plans to help existing science teachers gain the twelve hours of physics needed for certification. The courses that will be offered will be tailored to our teachers needs-they wont be regular college engineering physics courses or courses that required trig or calculus. Teachers with 8 hours of physics will need just one four hour course, teachers with 4 hours will need two courses, and teachers with no hours will need to take three physics courses. Stipends will be paid for your 1 summer time to take the courses, and the District will offer tuition reimbursement for the course!s). Teachers who need to take more than one course can be placed on a deficiency removal plan (DRP) and have up to two years to take the courses. Active Physics should be no more difficult to teach than physical science. In fact with the training planned, it should be easier to teach. I would like for present junior high science teachers, high school Science Technology teachers, and any other interested science and/or math teachers to come to the informational meeting to find out about the course, the certification process, and ask any questions that might come to mind. Ninth grade physics should be a great niche for those of you who want to become part of this exciting effort to better serve our high school students. If you cant come to the meeting but know that you want to move to the high school ninth grade physics slot or just need more information, please call and let me know (324-0518). I am getting a head count. CC: Dr. Bonnie Lesley Dr. Richard Hurley Brady Gadberry High School Principals ii i i I I J I! ii2L- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTHPULASKI ST. LIITLE ROCK, AR 72206 August 25, 1999 TO: Principals FROM: SUBJECT: Dennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science Deployment of Math/Science Lead Teachers I 1 am pleased to announce that the District has just employed/assigned a number of lead teachers to help facilitate the implementation of standards-based mathematics and science curricula in our classrooms. Six (6) elementary math/science lead teachers are on board as well as a middle school math, a middle school science, and a high school math lead teacher. Each elementary lead teacher has been assigned a cluster of about 5 elementary schools from those that do not currently have a science, math, or curriculum specialist. The cluster assignments are included after this memo. The lead teacher assigned to your school will develop a schedule so that she will be in your school one day each week. The primary job goal of each elementary lead teacher is to help your teachers implement Investigations in grades 4-5 and Science and Technology for Children for grades 1 -5. Trish Killingsworth and Lola Perritt will work through the math, science, or curriculum specialist at the six elementary schools that already have specialists. The middle school math lead teacher will help teachers with implementation of the Connected Mathematics Project in grades 6-8. The middle school science lead teacher will work with sixth grade teachers implementing Science and Technology for Children and with 7*' and 8* grade teachers in moving toward standards- based instruction. The high school math lead teacher will help teachers prepare students for the algebra and geometry end of course exams and will facilitate the use of a more standards- based approach in our high school math classrooms. The objectives for the lead teachers are included in a three-page document that follows. Also included in this document is a compilation of the ideas that the Campus Leadership Teams generated during the Institute to help gain parental support for our new standards- based mathematics and science programs. Perhaps your school can use some of these ideas. I am confident that the new standards-based mathematics and science programs, if they are implemented as intended, will increase student achievement and help us meet our NSF performance targets. The lead teachers will help this happen in your school. Your lead teacher will be in your school soon, if she hasnt already been there, to talk with you about her plans. _ Please call me if you need more information. II Math/Science Lead Teacher Assignments 1 I ELEMENTARY MATH/SCIENCE Cassandra Harding Antonette Finney Terry - 20 Mabelvale -16 Meadowcliff -13 Franklin -10 (Math focus) Fair Park - 9 Forest Park -17 Pulaski Hts. -17 Baseline -14 Rightsell -11 Dodd - 11 Annita Paul Renee Kovach Fulbright - 20 Mitchell -12 Cloverdale -19 Chicot -18 Jefferson -18 Wakefield -15 Wilson -13 Woodruff -12 Geyer Springs -11 Paula Smith Rockefeller -18 Otter Creek -12 Badgett - 9 Bale -13 Brady -15 Trish and Lola Carver Booker Gibbs Williams Washington King HIGH SCHOOL MATH Marcelline Carr Daryl Newcomb  McDermott -18 Western Hills -12 Garland -12 Romine - 7 (Science focus) Watson -18 MIDDLE SCHOOL MATH Docia Jones All middle schools MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE Rene Carson All middle schools All High Schools INFRASTRUCTURE FOR MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE The current infrastructure for mathematics and science is inadequate to provide sustained professional development and classroom support for teachers as they implement standards-based mathematics and science curricula. Presently, one elementary mathematics specialist, one secondary science specialist, and two elementary math/science specialists provide the training and support for all teachers. I To improve the infrastructure for mathematics and science, the 50 schools in the District will be divided into clusters that are each assigned a specialist. Five of the thirty-five elementary schools already have school-based math and/or science specialists. The other thirty schools will be divided into 6 clusters with 5 schools each. The 8 middle schools will make a cluster and the 5 high schools will make a cluster. An elementary lead teacher for mathematics and science support will be assigned to each of the 6 elementary clusters, a mathematics lead teacher and a science lead teacher will serve the cluster of middle schools, and a mathematics lead teacher and a science lead teacher will serve the five high schools. These ten lead teachers plus the specialists already based at individual schools will provide professional development and classroom level support for the mathematics and science teachers in their cluster. 3 The ten lead teachers will be funded in the following manner: I 4 - National Science Foundation Grant 1 - Title VI ft 3 s i 2.5 - Class-size Reduction Allocation 2.5 - District-funded or other funds to be sought 1 a The goal, objectives, and activities for the lead teachers aie as follows: 9 i S f -3 Goal: To facilitate the change from a traditional mathematics and science curriculum to a standards-based curriculum for the purpose of increasing the enrollment and achievement of students in mathematics and science. Objective 1: Provide professional development for mathematics and/or science teachers in the assigned cluster on District adopted standards-based math and science curricula and related topics such as cooperative learning, constructivist approach, inquiry learning, and problem solving strategies that are integral to standards-based pedagogy. Activities: 1. Receive training at the District-level to become proficient irf all the standards- based mathematics and science modules that are used in the cluster schools. 2. Identify first hand, through classroom visitations, the critical professional development needs of teachers in cluster schools.3. Schedule time for cluster teachers to participate in professional development to address the identified needs. 4. Identify highly successful teachers who can serve as models for other teachers and facilitate the visitation process. Objective 2: Provide weekly classroom support for teachers who are implementing standards-based curricula. This support will include encouragement, extra hands, mini-teaching, material resources, trouble shooting, and other technical support deemed necessary. Activities: 1. Schedule visitations to the schools so that each school is visited about once a 5 i ! 2. 3. 4. week. During each school visitation work with as many teachers as can be productively included. During the school visitations, provide immediate teachers with as much immediate technical assistance and support as possible and catalogue other needs for later attention or for referral to the District level. Visit with the principal of the school each time it is visited to keep him/her up to date on successes and needs. ) Objective 3: Provide opportunities for teachers to dialogue about experiences in implementing the standards-based curricula and provide follow-up professional development for cluster teachers to address observed/identified needs. Activities: i i ! t 1. 2. 3. 4. Schedule user conferences for teachers at cluster schools to share information about successes and concerns about the implementation of standards-based curricula. Identify successful implementers for other cluster teachers to visit to get ideas and information about effective implementation strategies. Identify needs for follow-up professional development and provide it for cluster teachers. Facilitate meetings between teachers with the same interest or concern to promote dialogue and problem solving. I ! i I Objective 4: Assess the implementation success of the teachers/schools in the cluster and evaluate the effectiveness of the standards-based programs in achieving desired student results._ Activities: - 1. Help implement District approved assessment tools in cluster schools. 2. Receive training on alternative assessment methods. 3. Assist teachers in cluster schools in embedding authentic assessment into their classroom teaching: 4. Gather data as requested/needed by the District. 5. Assess on a quarterly basis the degree to which the cluster schools are meeting District evaluation criteria.Objective 5: Serve as a liaison to the District Mathematics and Science Office and CPMSA Office for the purpose of aligning District resources and technical provided to the schools and providing additional District-level training. Activities\nsupport 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Attend District-level meetings to help determine needs for professional development or other support across the District. Receive training on all District standards-based curricula adopted for the levels of the assigned cluster schools. Report successes/concems to the District Math/Science and NSF Offices. Communicate to parents and the community about the systemic changes in mathematics and science iiicluding the standards-based curricular implementation. Provide information to the District Communications Office about cluster activities to be included in District publications. i ! !Elementary Schools Gain parental/community support for standards-based mathematics and science. Workshops for teachers to get on board Student demo program for parents Class observations Newsletters Take-home games Sell the teachers Flyers to parents at registration Home videos Homework packets Information at Open House Publicize results of schools that have tried it Use parent coordinators Family Math \u0026amp; Science night Parent information meetings, i.e., Muffins for Mom, Doughnuts for Dad Research - Proof of success locally and nationally Partner Participation Parenting classes Media exposure Parent committee to learn curriculum and teach other parents Background on why we are changing General meeting provided by math department on research Individual student/staff/parent testimonials Explain grading structure Homework center Parent mentors Parent conference script for teachers Web Site (Math page, science page) Team competitions Parent work sessions Exhibition Day(Products, Projects) Math section in Parent Handbook Math/science fair Awards assembly per semester Training of tutors in new programs Examples in parent center Develop parent manual Celebrate results Check-out activities 5 S.MIDDLE SCHOOLS Gain-parentai/community support for standards-based mathematics and science. Family Math \u0026amp; Science Night Involve neighborhood businesses in incorporating math/science in the work - Invite parents Involve untapped resources, i.e., retired teachers, community stakeholders Involve PARK, Learning Clubs, etc with new ways of teaching math and science Offer training sessions for parents Compose letter explaining changes and data that supports that change. Insure every math teacher has been inserviced Parent observation/participation should be encouraged Strong teacher support outside of school  Access to research for parents Multi-lingual communication Main channels on T.V., coverage on Community Service Math department information session Discuss with parents during orientation Teachers explain to students Teacher newsletter to parents prior to new unit Open House presentation/demonstration Target commimity churches to provide tutoring at their sites Provide training/workshops for potential tutors in standards-based mathematics Target neighborhood associations to enlist their support Teachers go into community and teach parents new approaches Pre/Post Growth assessment Tri-fold information handout Media blitz for school newspaper/newsletter and district newsletter LRSD Website Town Hall information meetings Math teachers motivate kids to share methods with parents on the first night 'ft J I -\"3 - V aHigh Schools Gain parental/community support for standards-based mathematics and science and Active Physics. Family math and science night with physics activities included. Printed media campaign to educate parents (orientation, registration, newsletters, school newspaper, etc) 9 weeks syllabus sent home to parents Student journals to be shared with parents Demonstrations during Open House Research data on ACT/SAT after higher math and science Task force to disseminate infomation to parents/community Staff development for teachers Parent observation of classrooms Student competitions similar to science fairs- Recruit elementary students/parents to shadow physics students Target/Market plan to minority parents Host Informational (Q \u0026amp; A) session for parents/community (Town Hall Meeting) Media coverage on television, district channel Sell the students: incentives Science Homework Center hotline Science Lab in community centers Change course name3 h ^,\\\u0026gt;C Mathematics Program Description Little Rock School District General Program Components The K-12 mathematics program in the Little Rock School District, as are all LRSD curriculum programs, is designed according to the following components: 1. Curriculum Content and Skills Standards that are aligned with the national curriculum standards and the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Frameworks. Board policy lA states that Academic content standards will be developed, with grade- and course-level benchmarks, in reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. The regulations also require that each curriculum program reflect the following exit standards\n\u0026gt; Adequately master reading, writing, speaking, listening (communication), critical and creative thinking, and mathematical skills sufficient for effective, efficient functioning.  Locate and use needed information from printed materials and/or other resources.  Identify problems and needs, apply problem-solving strategies, and analyze information for meaning and/or action.  Use tools of technology at an effective, efficient, flexible, and adaptable level.  Have knowledge of basic historical, geographic, political, literary, and scientific information, and use such knowledge in day-to-day decisions.  Appreciate and understand cultural differences, the arts and humanities, current happenings, and ways to predict or influence future events.  Establish and maintain effective and supportive intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cooperative relationships, and civic and social responsibility.  Demonstrate self-direction as an active life-long learner and demonstrate self-respect, self-esteem, self-understanding, and a physically and mentally balanced healthy life. Policy IG further requires that the curriculum at all levels of its development in the Little Rock School District will be standards-based and define what students should know and be able to do at the conclusion of each grade level or course. To ensure that the curriculum standards apply to all students and that high expectations are in place for all. Policy IGA requires the following: The staff responsible for the design and/or delivery of all special programs, including but not limited to, special education. Title I, English-as-a-Second Language, migrant education, gifted and talented education, 504 programs, alternative 1education programs, etc. are to ensure that their programs reflect the district- adopted grade-level/course standards and benchmarks and are coordinated with the overall curriculum plan. Special programs will adapt instruction, pacing, materials and assessments, as appropriate, to meet the unique needs of the students served. Policy IGE requires that all curriculum guides be aligned with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks, the LRSD academic content standards and benchmarks, and the assessments administered by LRSD and the State of Arkansas, including College Board Advanced Placement examinations and the ACT. tl Cumculum documents that describe the Little Rock School District mathematics program are as follows:  K-12 Mathematics Standards/Benchmarks  K-8 Benchmarks (publication for parents)  A Parent and Student Guide to Learning in Middle School, 2000-01 (publication for students and parents)  A High School Student and Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-01 (publication for students and parents)  Middle School Curriculum Catalog (publication for school-level staff)  High School Curriculum Catalog (publication for school-level staff) 2. Assessments to measure student progress toward achievement of the challenging mathematics content and skills standards. These assessments include all those in the Districts formal assessment program, as well as those that are teacher created and embedded in instruction. As teacher skills improve, they are moving more and more toward seamless instruction and assessment. Student assessments provide teachers frequent data to evaluate not only how individual students are performing, but also how they may need to modify their instructional strategies to create more student success. 3. Effective teaching strategies that are research-based or best practice. Such strategies are those that are constructivist in nature, that lead to student understanding of complex concepts and their applications, and that lead to student success in demonstrating successful performance relating to the achievement of the content and skills standards for the course. 4. Selection and use of materials (such as software, textbooks, manipulatives, calculators, etc.) that assist both in teaching and in learning and that lead to student success in achieving the curriculum content and skills standards. 5. Professional development that supports teachers in their understanding of the grade-level or course standards, in the design of appropriate assessments to measure student success, in the design of rubrics or scoring guides, in the acquisition of the skills and understandings necessary to develop effective 2teaching strategies, and in the use of appropriate materials (software, textbooks, manipulatives, calculators, etc.). The districts professional development program includes both in-classroom coaching and follow-up training. New topics for training are determined based upon interpretations of student achievement data and on the demonstrated needs of teachers (as determined through classroom observations and teacher surveys). 6. Program evaluations that are conducted in year 2 of the curriculum guide development cycle. The regulations in IGE-Rl require that program evaluations for each curriculum program be conducted prior to the revision of new curriculum guides and that the recommendations be used in the design of the guide. Program Definition in Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The Districts revised plan, approved by the federal court in spring 1998, included several obligations for the reform of the Districts mathematics program. They are as follows: Section 5.3: Mathematics. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve mathematics instruction. Section 5.3.1: Revise the mathematics curriculum to include a smaller number of concepts at each level, the use of manipulatives, and problem solving and critical thinking, and train teachers on its implementation. Section 5.3.2\nDevelop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum. Section 5.3.3: Provide resources for early intervention with students with mathematical problems and for training teachers on early intervention\nand Section 5.3.4: Revise mathematics curriculum to increase the number of students successfully completing Algebra I and higher-level mathematics courses. Section 5.3.5. Adopt as a goal that all students in regular classes will complete Algebra and Geometry by the end of their eleventh grade year and that students will be proficient in mathematics by graduation. LRSD shall provide assistance to those students experiencing difficulty with Algebra and Geometry. A copy from the Districts Interim Compliance Report as of March 15, 2000, relating to these obligations is attached in the appendix to this section. Magnet Programs The Little Rock School District has made a major investment over the years in several magnet schools and magnet programs within schools to further its desegregation efforts and to provide special programming for students with specialized interests. The following schools feature magnets in the area of mathematics and science: 3Carver I Jementary SchoolScience and Mathematics Magnet School An extra hour of science per week is provided by the Science Specialist, her assistant, and the classroom teacher in a fully equipped state-of-the-art science laboratory. The students work in small groups to discover solutions to challenging problems through hands-on experiments. Every other week the science specialist plans with each grade level to implement the District curriculum intergrated with literacy instruction. Each child in grades 3-4-5 participates in a choice of science fairs, which include Science, Mathematics, and Invent America. All classrooms have their choice of animals to study and care for throughout the year. Students are encouraged to house them at the homes during summer and all vacations. Science becomes real life at Carver. Williams Elementary SchoolBasic Skills Magnet School A full-time curriculum specialist provides support for science and mathematics through school-wide activities, such as the science/ mathematics fair, demonstrations, experiments, and a continuous search for professional development activities that are aligned with the school improvement plan. She has also created a science/mathematics laboratory where she schedules more complex experiments than can be done in the regular classroom. In addition, she schedules resource speakers and field trips that support the standards-based curricula in mathematics and science. She shares her expertise with all teachers in planning for the delivery of each instructional module and in assessing student understanding and progress. Washington Elementary Magnet School and King Elementary Interdistrict School both have science and mathematics labs and full-time curriculum specialists who support teachers in the implementation of high quality science and mathematics instruction. Maim Middle SchoolScience Magnet School Each student in this school takes a second science course each year in grades 6-8Science Lab 6, Science Lab 7, and Science Lab 8. Students at Mann participate in a wide variety of co/extra-curricular activities related to their specialization area of science and mathematics. Henderson Middle SchoolHealth Sciences Magnet Program Each student in this program (school within a school) takes a second science course: Health Science 6, Health Science 7, and Health Science 8. Henderson is also one of the original technology schools in the District, with computers in every classroom and a virtual classroom established in partnership with the University of Arkansas for Medical Science (UAMS). 4Parkview High SchoolScience Magnet School Students at Parkview High School must five units in a Career Focus: Two units of biology beyond Biology I\nand One semester of chemistry beyond Chemistry I\nand Two units of German or Latin\nand One semester of Applied Statistics and Technical Writing\nand Yearly Project. Science courses that are unique to Parkview High School are as follows: Microbiology (1/2) Qualitative Analysis (1/2) Applied Statistics/Technical Writing (1/2) Environmental Health (1/2) Human Anatomy and Physiology (1/2) Organic Chemistry (1/2) Students specializing in science and mathematics at Parkview also participate in a wide variety of related co/extracurricular activities. University Studies Program Hall High School began in fall 1999 a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). A university professor and a high school teacher co-teach designated courses through which students at grades 11-12 may earn dual creditboth high school credit toward graduation and college hours. In fall 2000 the first mathematics course will be offered: Pre-Calculus A and B (high school credit) and UALRs College Algebra (college credit) Lab Schools Throughout 1999-2000 some of the staff have worked with teams of staff and parents at each of four secondary schools in southwest Little Rock to design plans for curriculum enhancements and the improvement of student achievement. Those four schools are Mablevale Middle, Cloverdale Middle, McClellan High, and Fair High. The plans that are emerging (and for which external funding will be sought to supplement district funds in support of implementation) all involve emphases on science and technology-related programs. By the end of summer 2000 more definitive information will be available on these plans, and they will become another major component in the Districts agenda for the next several years. As an example, Mablevale Middle is proposing an emphasis on Environmental Science. And Fair High School has already developed a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to feed students from Fair directly to the new Information Technology program at UALR. Two new courses will be offered at Fair in 2000-2001: Applications of Mathematicsa web-based pre-calculus course\nand Enterprise Information Sciencea project-oriented laboratory course in information technology. A summer program on the UALR campus has also been developed to 5provide Fair High students with mathematics and science knowledge and skill development. Two elementary schools were added to this study and planning initiative, Fair Park Elementary and Stephens Elementary (to open in fall 2000). Fair Park Elementarys plan includes an emphasis in Environmental Studies\nand Stephens Elementary will include major emphases in technology applications and economics. Graduation Requirements-Mathematics Students in the Little Rock School School District may earn diplomas in one of four ways\n1. Students may graduate from the Accelerated Learning Center with a total of 21 units, including three units of mathematics: Algebra I or Algebra I Pre-AP Concepts of Geometry or Geometry or Geometry Pre-AP Algebra II or Algebra II Pre-AP or Statistics or Statistics AP Students may take Algebra I Pre-AP for high school credit in grade 8. The Accelerated Learning Center (ACC) is an alternative high school for over-age, credit-deficient students. The curriculum is technologically supported and competency based so that students can move to the next course as soon as they complete the previous one. The required 21 units for graduation are the minimum required by the State of Arkansas. 2. Students may graduate from any of the five comprehensive high schools with a total of 24 units of credit, including at least three units of mathematics: Algebra I or Algebra I Pre-AP Concepts of Geoemtry or Geometry or Geometry Pre-AP Algebra II or Algebra II Pre-AP or Statistics or Statistics AP Students may take Algebra I Pre-AP for high school credit in grade 8. Some few advanced or gifted students also take Geometry Pre-AP and/or Algebra II Pre-AP during middle school, but the State of Arkansas allows only one credit in mathematics taken in middle school to count toward high school graduation. 3. To encourage as many students as possible to pursue a more rigorous and challenging high school program, the Board of Education also established a recommended curriculum for high school graduation. It includes 27 units of credit, including four units of mathematics\nAlgebra I or Algebra I Pre-AP Geometry or Geometry Pre-AP Algebra II or Algebra II Pre-AP One additional unit of advanced mathematics Students may take Algebra I Pre-AP for high school credit in grade 8. Some few advanced or gifted students also take Geometry Pre-AP and/or Algebra II Pre-AP during middle school, but the State of Arkansas allows only one credit 6in mathematics taken in middle school to count toward high school graduation. 4. Students who have identified learning disabilities may graduate under a plan designed by their lEP committees. These plans generally track the Districts requirements for all students, except that some courses may be adapted courses for students in the Resource Room or in Self-Contained settings. Career Focus Arkansas requires each graduate to have earned a minimum of three units in one area of Career Focus. Students who wish to complete their Career Focus in science and/or mathematics will complete the following: Two units of one foreign language\nand One additional unit beyond Common Core requirements in science or mathematics\nor Three units beyond the Common Core requirements from upper-level mathematics and/or science courses. Students who pursue the recommended graduation plan must complete a minimum of four units in the Career Focus. Pre-Advanced Placement CoursesMathematics The Little Rock School District has long offered advanced,' honors, or enriched courses in the core curriculum areas for advanced students. Effective fall 1999, the District standardized those courses and named them all as Pre-Advanced Placement, grades 6-10 or 6-11. The regulations in IGE-Rl state the following: Pre-Advanced Placement courses, beginning in grade 6, will reflect LRSD standards and benchmarks and shall be aligned with the College Boards syllabus requirements for Advanced Placement courses, incrementally building in students the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in Advanced Placement courses and examinations. ... Curriculum program staff are responsible for ensuring that the curricula for Pre-AP and AP courses are qualitatively different from the curricula of parallel regular-level courses. The regulations in IHBB-R state that identified gifted/talented students are to be placed in Pre-Advanced Placement courses at the middle school level. At the high school level, students who are gifted/talented in mathematics are placed in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. Other options include seminars, mentorships, dualenrollment (with concurrent university credit) and/or independent study. These courses are not, however, limited to gifted/talented students. 7Policy IHCC establishes the Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement program for the Little Rock School District as a vehicle for providing quality educational opportunities for all its students through a rigorous, challenging curriculum. Importantly, the policy also mandates that there be no barriers to participation in Pre- Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses due to ethnicity, race, gender, national origin, creed, socioeconomic level, or handicapping condition. Further, District staff are required to include in its professional development program for teachers and counselors training in identifying and encouraging increasing percentages of students to participate in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. The following Pre-Advanced Placement mathematics courses are offered in the Little Rock School District: Mathematics 6 Pre-AP Mathematics 7 Pre-AP Mathematics 8 Pre-AP Algebra I Pre-AP (grade 8) Algebra II Pre-AP Geometry Pre-AP Trigonometry and Advanced Algebra Pre-AP Desegregation Compliance One of the major issues in the Districts 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan relates to African-American enrollment in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. The obligations are as follows: Section 2.6: LRSD shall implement programs, polices, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified Afidcan-Americans in ... advanced placement courses ... and the gifted and talented program. Section 2.6.1: LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging Afidcan-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Section 2.6.2: LRSD shall implement programs to assist Afidcan-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. In the appendix attached to this section is the text from a document filed on March 15, 2000, with the federal court in Little Rockthe Interim Compliance Report, which includes details of the activities that have been completed in response to the above-stated obligations. These pages document the Districts efforts to ensure that students are not tracked academically and that increasing percentages of Afidcan-Americans emoll in both Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. 8Also attached in the appendix for this section is a recent report published by the Division of Instruction that documents progress to date in increasing enrollment and success of African-American students in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. A summary of the findings follows:  The total enrollment of African-American students in AP courses has increased from 471 in 1997-98 to 695 in 1999-2000a 48 percent increase.  The total eiuolhnent in AP courses for all students has increased from 1435 in 1997-98 to 1791 in 1999-2000a 25 percent increase. Improvements are the result of the following:  Improved recruitment of students by teachers and counselors for AP course enrollment.  Addition of several new AP courses to the LRSD curriculum.  The Boards decision in December 1998 to make all AP courses available in all five high schools.  Inclusion of enrollment in AP courses as one of the Quality Index indicators (the LRSD school accountability system).  Change in regulations so that students may now enroll in a Pre-AP or AP course if they earned at least a C in the previous course.  Increased awareness of goals through the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, NSF Project, policies and regulations adoption, and professional development. National Origin Issues In March 1999 the Office of Civil Rights conducted a routine compliance review of the programs for second-language students in the Little Rock School District. They found the District out of compliance in several areas. Rather than endure the expense and time for lengthy litigation, the District voluntarily entered into a Commitment to Resolve agreement with OCR. One of the obligations in that agreement relates to this issue of student access to special opportunity programswhich include the Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement mathematics courses and the University Studies program at Hall High School. The policy regulations in IHBEA-R state the following: The District will ensure that LEP students have equal access to the Gifted and Talented programs and Pre-AP and AP couses at the secondary level throughout the District and to the University Studies program at Hall High School. The District will provide parents of LEP students information about any opporfimities, requirements, selection criteria, or general information regarding the G/T program, Pre-AP and AP courses, and the University Studies program that is provided to the parents of non-LEP students. 9Screening tests should be in the language of the students, if at all practicable. If nonverbal tests are adminstered, the instrucnons should be in the language of the students. Staff who administer GT screening tests to LEP students must have received training on addressing the needs of LEP students. Elementary Mathematics (K-5) Courses The adopted curriculum standards and grade-level benchmarks define the curriculum for grades K-5. The formal assessment program (described elsewhere in section 6 of this Update to the Annual Report) provides measurements of student progress. In addition, teachers use the released items from the State Benchmark Examinations and the sample Gateway assessment items that are provided through the states Smart Start program to assess student growth. They also use teacher-created assessments, including observations of student performance to determine progress. The District has adopted Investigations in Number, Data, and Space to support its K-5 curriculum. This program is a complete K-5 mathematics curriculum that supports all students as they learn to think mathematically. Investigations has been carefully designed to engage students in key mathematical content as they develop number sense, learn to visualize and describe geometrical relationships, and collect and analyze real data. As they explore mathematical problems in depth, students work together, use a variety of concrete materials and appropriate technology, and express their mathematical thinking through talking, drawing, and writing. The first four curriculum standards for mathematics are embedded throughout the Investigations curriculum as noted below: Standard 1: Mathematics as Problem Solving. In each investigation, students consider problems, develop a variety of strategies to solve them, and share their solutions. Standard 2: Mathematics as Communication. Students are involved in building, drawing, representing, writing, and talking as part of their mathematics work. They develop their own strategies for representing and recording and are introduced to a repertoire of useful ways of utilizing concrete materials, pictures, tables, graphs, and charts. Standards. Mathematics as Reasoning. Units of study are designed to support teachers and students as they move away from a view of mathematics as a series of facts and procedures to be memorized toward a view of mathematics as a discipline in which one can use all the resources at at hand to reason about mathematical problems. Standard 4. Mathematical Connections. Most units are structured around connected mathematical ideas: addition and subtraction always appear together, as do multiplication and division. The connection is also made between the 10 conventional mathematical symbols, terms and notation, and the MEANING of mathematical operations and relationships. The following Investigations modules address the curriculum standards as noted: Grade 1 Modules Mathematical Thinking at Grade 1 (Introduction) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 11. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Statistics and Probability Patterns and Relationships Building Number Sense (The Number System) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 10. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Measurement Patterns and Relationships Survey Questions and Secret Rules (Collecting and Sorting Data) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 11. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Statistics and Probability Patterns and Relationships Quilt Squares and Block Towns (2-D and 3-D Geometry) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 11. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Statistics and Probability Patterns and Relationships 11 Number Games and Story Problems (Addition and Subtraction) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Patterns and Relationships Grade 2 Modules Mathematical Thinking at Grade 2 (Introduction) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 11. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Statistics and Probability Patterns and Relationships Coins, Coupons, and Combinations (The Number System) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 11. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Statistics and Probability Patterns and Relationships Does It Walk, Crawl, or Swim? (Sorting and Classifying Data) Standards 1-4 (See above.) Standard 11. Statistics and Probability Shapes, Halves, and Symmetry (Geometry and Fractions) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 9. Standard 10. Standard 12. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Geometry and Spatial Sense Measurement Fractions and Decimals Patterns and Relationships 12 Putting Together and Taking Apart (Addition and Subtraction) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Patterns and Relationships How Long? How Far? (Measuring) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 10. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Measurement Patterns and Relationships Grade 3 Modules Mathematical Thinking at Grade 3 (Introduction) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Patterns and Relationships Things That Come in Groups (Multiplication and Division) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Patterns and Relationships Flips, Turns, and Area (2-D Geometry) Standards 1-4 Standard 9. Standard 10. (See above.) Geometry and Spatial Sense Measurement Standard 13. Patterns and Relationships From Paces to Feet (Measuring and Data) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 9. Standard 10. (See above.) Estimation Geometry and Spatial Sense Measurement 13 Standard 11. Statistics and Probability Standard 13. Patterns and Relationships Landmarks in the Hundreds (The Number System) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Patterns and Relationships Combining and Comparing (Addition and Subtraction) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 10. Standard 11. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Measurement Statistics and Probability Patterns and Relationships Fair Shares (Fractions) Standards 1-4 Standard 9. Standard 12. Standard 13. (See above.) Geometry and Spatial Sense Fractions and Decimals Patterns and Relationships Exploring Solids and Boxes (3-D Geometry) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 9. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Geometry and Spatial Sense Patterns and Relationships Grade 4 Modules Mathematical Thinking at Grade 4 (Introduction) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 1. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 13. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Patterns and Relationships 14 Arrays and Shares (Multiplication and Division) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 9. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Geometry and Spatial Sense Patterns and Relationships Seeing Solids and Silhouettes (3-D Geometry) Standards 1-4 (See above.) Standard 9. Geometry and Spatial Sense Landmarks in the Thousands (The Number System) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Patterns and Relationships Different Shapes, Equal Pieces (Fractions and Area) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 9. Standard 10. Standard 12. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Geometry and Spatial Sense Measurement Fractions and Decimals Patterns and Relationships Money, Miles, and Large Numbers (Addition and Subtraction) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 10. Standard 12. (See above.) Estimation Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Measurement Fractions and Decimals Packages and Groups (Multiplication and Division) Standards 1-4 Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 13. (See above.) Number Sense and Numeration Concepts of Whole Number Operations Whole Number Computation Patterns and Relationships 15 Grade 5 Modules Mathematical Thinking at Grade 5 (Introduction) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 8. Standard 12. (See above.) Number and Number Relationships Number Systems and Number Theory Computation and Estimation Patterns and Functions Geometry Picturing Polygons (2-D Geometry) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 1. Standard 8. Standard 13. (See above.) Number and Number Relationships Number Systems and Number Theory Computation and Estimation Patterns and Functions Measurement Name that Portion (Fractions, Percents, and Decimals) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 1. Standard 8. Standard 10. (See above.) Number and Number Relationships Number Systems and Number Theory Computation and Estimation Patterns and Functions Statistics Between Never and Always (Probability) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 10. Standard 11. (See above.) Number and Number Relationships Number Systems and Number Theory Computation and Estimation Statistics Probability Building on Numbers You Know (Computation and Estimation Strategies) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 6. Standard 7. Standard 9. (See above.) Number and Number Relationships Number Systems and Number Theory Computation and Estimation Algebra 16 Containers and Cubes (3-D Geometry: Volume) Standards 1-4 Standard 5. Standard 7. Standard 12. Standard 13. (See above.) Number and Number Relationship Computation and Estimati Geometry Measurement Middle Schools (Grades 6-81 Mathematics Courses The adopted curriculum standards and course benchmarks define the curriculum for grades 6-8. The formal assessment program (described elsewhere in section 6 of this Update to the Annual Report) provides measurements of student progress. In addition, teachers use the released items from the State Benchmark Examinations and the sample Gateway assessment items that are provided through the states Middle Start program to assess student growth. They also use teacher-created assessments, including observations of student performance to determine progress. The District has adopted the Connected Mathematics Program to support its grades 6-8 curriculum. This curriculum is devoted to developing student knowledge and understanding of mathematics that are rich in connections- :onnections among core ideas in mathematics, connections between mathematics and its applications in other school subjects, connections between the planned teaching/leaming activities and interests of middle school students, and connections with the applications of mathematical ideas in the world outside school. The curriculum is organized around interesting problem settingsreal situations, whimsical situations, or interesting mathematical situations. Students explore problems, work in cooperative groups, use a variety of concrete materials and appropriate technology to conjecture, test, and generalize their mathematical thinking through writing, drawing, and talking. Computation skills are embedded and reinforced in each unit. The following four curriculum content standards are embedded in all CMP units\nStandard 1. Mathematics as Problem Solving. All the CMP units are divided into investigations which present problems for the students to solve. The entire curriculum is built around these problems in contexts that are interesting to the students. Many of the contexts have validity in the real world. Others use fantasy of mathematics as a context. Standard 2. Mathematics as Communications. Emphasis is placed on the students discussing the problems in class, talking through their solutions, and learning how to communicate their solutions to a more general audience. They learn how to communicate by using different kinds of representations such as graphs, tables, formulas, or written explanations of arguments. 17Standard 3. Mathematics as Reasoning Through discussing the problems and solutions, the students learn to reason about the mathematics. They leam that mathematics is man-made, that it is arbitrary, and good solutions are arrived at by consensus among those who are considered expert. Standard 4. Mathematics as Connections Each unit connects the mathematics to other areas of mathematics and to applications of mathematics in the real world. All the investigation problems are set in contexts with opportunity provided to reflect on the connections. Standards 5-13 are emphasized in the curriculum units of each grade level. A correlation of the standards within each module are displayed in an attached in the appendix to this section of the Update to the Annual Report. High School (Grades 9-12) Mathematics Courses The adopted curriculum standards and course benchmarks define the curriculum for grades 9-12. The formal assessment program (described elsewhere in section 6 of this Update to the Annual Report) provides measurements of student progress. In addition, teachers will use the released items from the State Benchmark Examinations to assess student growth. They also use teacher-created assessments, including observations of student performance to determine progress. The courses listed below have been standards-based for several years. District leaders have concentrated on providing appropriate teacher training to support teachers in understanding the standards, in developing their content knowledge, in adopting effective teaching strategies, in creating assessments, and in the appropriate use of materials (calculators, software, Internet resources, textbooks, manipulatives, etc.). Curriculum maps for each course have been developed so that teachers can see the correlations between the standards and the assessments and between the standards and the materials that have been adopted. Courses offered for high school credit include the following: Algebra I Algebra I Pre-AP Concepts of Geometry Geometry Geometry Pre-AP Algebra II Algebra II Pre-AP Trigonometry and Advanced Algebra (Effective fall 2001, this course will be dropped from the curriculum. Students completing Algebra I-II and Geometry who wish to enroll in a fourth year of mathematics will take Pre-Calculus Pacesetter Mathematics\nthose who want a fifth year will take Calculus.) 18 Trigonometry and Advanced Algebra Pre-AP (Students taking this course will be prepared to take an AP Calculus course or to take college-level calculus.,* Pre-Calculus (dual credit with UALR at Hall High only) Pre-Calculus Pacesetter Mathematics (to be offered in all five high schools in 2000-01) Applications of Mathematics (a web-based pre-calculus course to be piloted at Fair High only, in collaboration with UALR, in 2000-01) Statistics Statistics AP ACT Preparation: Mathematics (a one-semester review of the mathematics that is tested on the ACT/SAT examinations) Calculus Calculus AB Advanced Placement Calculus BC Advanced Placement All below-level or remedial mathematics courses were dropped from the curriculum, effective fall 1999. If schools offer remedial courses, they are not allowed to grant high school credit for them. All regular-level courses are taught according to the adopted standards and course-level benchmarks. These courses are taught at grade-level. The District is considering the adoption of the I Can Learn Algebra I laboratories to support the curriculum for this course. A decision will be made by the Board of Education on April 27, 2000, regarding this adoption. This software was developed, according to the information provided by the ERL Enterprises, to assist teachers in implementing the National Content Standards and attaining Goals 2000. It achieves this technological breakthrough by elevating classroom computers from enrichment and remediation to create the first full-time, self-paced curriculum teaching tool. I Can Learn Algebra is a comprehensive mathematics curriculum meeting NCTM standards with algebraic content relevant to real-world applications. More work is in progress to identify the teaching strategies and appropriate instructional materials to renew the Algebra I-II and Geoemtry curricula. To date, the Districts focus has been on professional developmentespecially in the delivery of more effective teaching strategies. Pre-Calculus Pacesetter Mathematics is taught according to the syllabus and standards provided by the College Board for this program. Pacesetter Mathematics teaches precalculus through modeling.  It incorporates curriculum and assessment standards of NCTM.  It is based on the premise that all students should aspire to and can achieve excellence.  It presents students with real-world problem-solving tasks from the economy, growth, pricing, interest, inventory, scheduling, seasonality, and production. 19  It promotes conceptual learning through mathematical modeling\nasks students to generate experimental data and develop mathematical models to reach solutions to problems.  It provides structure for student-centered problem solving.  It makes extensive use of graphing calculators as a technological tool.  It specifies course standards and objectives.  It uses assessments based on standards and objectives.  It provides structured ongoing student assessment plus end-of-year assessment.  It is an instrument for expanding and deepening students knowledge, application skills, and communication in the language of mathematics. Pacesetter Mathematics offers summer institutes, electronic communication links, and inservice training for mathematics teachers. As noted above in the course list, Pacesetter Mathematics will become the regular-level fourth-year mathematics course no later than fall 2001. Students now taking Trigonometry and Advanced Algebra will take Pacesetter Mathematics. All Pre-AP courses are taught above grade-level and must be qualitatively differentiated from the regular-level curriculum and aligned both with the AP courses to which they lead and the ACT transition documents. All AP courses are taught according to the College Board syllabi provided for Advanced Placement courses. Improvement of African-American Student Achievement Section 2.7 of the Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan states the following: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students. Attached in the appendix to this section are the pages from the Interim Compliance Report that was filed with the federal court on March 15, 2000, that discuss the Districts efforts thus far in this area of critical importance. These pages include the following topics:  How LRSD aligned all its planning efforts to ensure coherence.  An explanation of the LRSD Student Success Model.  A list of the policies that have been approved to ensure high expectations for all students.  A list of the administrative regulations that are now in place.  A discussion of the curriculum content standards and grade-level and course benchmarks.  A discussion of the work in progress to develop Instructional Standards with a list of the resources that have been consulted. 20  A list of the programs that have been created or refined to ensure student success. This section is not specifically about mathematics or science, but, rather, student achievement in general. 21 4Science Program Description Little Rock School District General Program Components The K-12 science program in the Little Rock School District, as are all LRSD curriculum programs, is designed according to the following components: 1. Curriculum Content and Skills Standards that are aligned with the national curriculum standards and the Arkansas Science Curriculum Frameworks. Board policy lA states that Academic content standards will be developed, with grade- and course-level benchmarks, in reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. The regulations also require that each curriculum program reflect the following exit standards:  Adequately master reading, writing, speaking, listening (communication), critical and ci native thinking, and mathematical skills sufficient for effective, efficient functioning.  Locate and use needed information from printed materials and/or other resources.  Identify problems and needs, apply problem-solving strategies, and analyze information for meaning and/or action.  Use tools of technology at an effective, efficient, flexible, and adaptable level.  Have knowledge of basic historical, geographic, political, literary, and scientific information, and use such knowledge in day-to-day decisions.  Appreciate and understand cultural differences, the arts and humanities, current happenings, and ways to predict or influence future events.  Establish and maintain effective and supportive intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cooperative relationships, and civic and social responsibility.  Demonstrate self-direction as an active life-long learner and demonstrate self-respect, self-esteem, self-understanding, and a physically and mentally balanced healthy life. Policy IG further requires that the curriculum at all levels of its development in the Little Rock School District will be standards-based and define what students should know and be able to do at the conclusion of each grade level or course. To ensure that the curriculum standards apply to all students and that high expectations are in place for all, Policy IGA requires the following\nThe staff responsible for the design and/or delivery of all special programs, including but not limited to, special education. Title I, English-as-a-Second Language, migrant education, gifted and talented education, 504 programs, alternative education programs, etc. are to ensure that their programs reflect the district- adopted grade-level/course standards and benchmarks and are coordinated with the overall curriculum plan. Special programs will adapt instruction, pacing, materials and assessments, as appropriate, to meet the unique needs of the students served. Policy IGE requires that all curriculum guides be aligned with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks, the LRSD academic content standards and benchmarks, and the assessments administered by LRSD and the State of Arkansas, including College Board Advanced Placement examinations and the ACT.\" Curriculum documents that describe the Little Rock School District mathematics program are as follows\n K-12 Science Standards/Benchmarks  K.-8 Benchmarks (publication for parents)  A Parent and Student Guide to Learning in Middle School, 2000-01 (publication for students and parents)  A High School Student and Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-01 (publication for students and parents)  Middle School Curriculum Catalog (publication for school-level staff)  High School Curriculum Catalog (publication for school-level staff) 2, 3. 4. Assessments to measure student progress toward achievement of the challenging mathematics content and skills standards. These assessments include all those in the Districts formal assessment program, as well as those that are teacher created and embedded in instruction. As teacher skills improve, we are moving more and more toward seamless instruction and assessment. Student assessments provide teachers frequent data to evaluate not only how individual students are performing, but also how they may need to modify their instructional strategies to create more student success. Effective teaching strategies that are research-based or best practice. Such strategies are those that are constructivist in nature, that lead to student understanding of complex concepts and their applications, and that lead to student success in demonstrating successful performance relating to the achievement of the content and skills standards for the course. Selection and use of materials (such as software, textbooks, manipulatives, calculators, etc.) that assist both in teaching and in learning and that lead to student success in achieving the curriculum content and skills standards. 5. Professional development that supports teachers in their understanding of the grade-level or course standards, in the design of appropriate assessments to measure student success, in the design of rubrics or scoring guides, in the acquisition of the skills and understandings necessary to develop effective teaching strategies, and in the use of appropriate materials (software, textbooks, materials for scientific experiments, kits, etc.). The Districts professional development program includes both in-classroom coaching and follow-up training. New topics for training are determined based upon interpretations of student achievement data and on the demonstrated needs of teachers (as determined through classroom observations and teacher surveys). 6. Program evaluations that are conducted in year 2 of the curriculum guide development cycle. The regulations in IGE-Rl require that program evaluations for each curriculum program be conducted prior to the revision of new curriculum guides and that the recommendations be used in the design of the guide. Magnet Programs The Little Rock School District has made a major investment over the years in several magnet schools and magnet programs within schools to further its desegregation efforts and to provide special programming for students with specialized interests. The following schools feature magnets in the area of mathematics and science\nCarver Elementary SchoolScience and Mathematics Magnet School An extra hour of science per week is provided by the Science Specialist, her assistant, and the classroom teacher in a fully equipped state-of-the-art science laboratory. The students work in small groups to discover solutions to challenging problems through hands-on experiments. Every other week the science specialist plans with each grade level to implement the District curriculum intergrated with literacy instruction. Each child in grades 3-4-5 participates in a choice of science fairs, which include Science, Mathematics, and Invent America. All classrooms have their choice of animals to study and care for throughout the year. Students are encouraged to house them at the homes during summer and all vacations. Science becomes real life at Carver. Williams Elementary SchoolBasic Skills Magnet School A full-time curriculum specialist provides support for science and mathematics through school-wide activities, such as the science/ mathematics fair, demonstrations, experiments, and a continuous search for professional development activities that are aligned with the school improvement plan. She has also created a science/mathematics laboratory where she schedules more complex experiments than can be done in the regular classroom. In addition, she schedules resource speakers and field trips that support the standards-based curricula in mathematics and science. She shares her expertise with all teachers in planning for the delivery of each instructional module and in assessing student understanding and progress.Washington Elementary Magnet School and King Elementary Interdistrict School both have science and mathematics labs and full-time curriculum specialists who support teachers in the implementation of high quality science and mathematics instruction. Mann Middle SchoolScience Magnet School Each student in this school takes a second science course each year in grades 6-8Science Lab 6, Science Lab 7, and Science Lab 8. Students at Mann participate in a wide variety of co/extra-curricular activities related to their specialization area of science and mathematics. Henderson Middle SchoolHealth Sciences Magnet Program Each student in this program (school within a school) takes a second science course: Health Science 6, Health Science 7, and Health Science 8. Henderson is also one of the original technology schools in the District, with computers in every classroom and a virtual classroom established in partnership with the University of Arkansas for Medical Science (UAMS). Parkview High SchoolScience Magnet School Students at Parkview High School must five units in a Career Focus: Two units of biology beyond Biology I\nand One semester of chemistry beyond Chemistry I\nand Two units of German or Latin\nand One semester of Applied Statistics and Technical Writing\nand Yearly Project. Science courses that are unique to Parkview High School are as follows: Microbiology (1/2) Qualitative Analysis (1/2) Applied Statistics/Technical Writing (1/2) Environmental Health (1/2) Human Anatomy and Physiology (1/2) Organic Chemistry (1/2) Students specializing in science and mathematics at Parkview also participate in a wide variety of related co/extracurricular activities. University Studies Program Hall High School began in fall 1999 a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). A university professor and a high school teacher co-teach designated courses through which students at grades 11-12 may earn dual creditboth high school credit toward graduation and college hours. In fall 2000 the following science courses will be offered: Biology IIA (first semester of Biology II) and UALRs course: Science of Biology (3 hours) Physics I Pre-AP and UALRs course: Elementary Physics I-II (6 hours) Lab Schools Throughout 1999-2000 some of the staff have worked with teams of staff and parents at each of four secondary schools in southwest Little Rock to design plans for curriculum enhancements and the improvement of student achievement. Those four schools are Mablevale Middle, Cloverdale Middle, McClellan High, and Fair High. The plans that are emerging (and for which external funding will be sought to support implementation) all involve emphases on science and technology-related programs. By the end of summer 2000 more definitive information will be available on these plans, and they will become another major component in the Districts agenda for the next several years. As an example, Mablevale Middle is proposing an emphasis on Environmental Science. And Fair High School has already developed a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to feed students from Fair directly to the new Information Technology program at UALR. Two new courses will be offered at Fair in 2000-2001: Applications of Mathematicsa web-based pre-calculus course\nand Enterprise Information Sciencea project-oriented laboratory course in information technology. Graduation Requirements-Science Students in the Little Rock School School District may earn diplomas in one of four ways\n1. Students may graduate from the Accelerated Learning Center with a total of 21 units, including three units of science: Physical Science or Physics I Biology I One additional unit of science The Accelerated Learning Center (ACC) is an alternative high school for over-age, credit-deficient students. The curriculum is technologically supported and competency based so that students can move to the next course as soon as they complete the previous one. The required 21 units for graduation are the minimum required by the State of Arkansas. 2. Students may graduate from any of the five comprehensive high schools with a total of 24 units of credit, including at least three units of science: Physics I (Active Physics) or Physics I Pre-AP Biology I or Biology I Pre-AP Chemistry I or Chemistry I Pre-AP 3. To encourage as many students as possible to pursue a more rigorous and challenging high school program, the Board of Education also established a recommended curriculum for high school graduation. It includes 27 units of credit, including four units of science: Physics 1 (Active Physics) or Physics I Pre-AP Biology I or Biology I Pre-AP Chemistry I or Chemistry I Pre-AP One additional unit of science 4. Students who have identified learning disabilities may graduate under a plan designed by their lEP committees. These plans generally track the Districts requirements for all students, except that some courses may be adapted courses for students in the Resource Room or in Self-Contained settings. Career Focus Arkansas requires each graduate to have earned a minimum of three units in one area of Career Focus. Students who wish to complete their Career Focus in science and/or mathematics will complete the following: Two units of one foreign language\nand One additional unit beyond Common Core requirements in science or mathematics\nor Three units beyond the Common Core requirements from upper-level mathematics and/or science courses. Students who pursue the recommended graduation plan must complete a minimum of four units in the Career Focus. Pre-Advanced Placement CoursesScience The Little Rock School District has long offered advanced,' honors, or enriched courses in the core curriculum areas for advanced students. Effective fall 1999, the District standardized those courses and named them all as Pre-Advanced Placement, grades 6-10 or 6-11. The regulations in IGE-Rl state the following: Pre-Advanced Placement courses, beginning in grade 6, will reflect LRSD standards and benchmarks and shall be aligned with the College Boards syllabus requirements for Advanced Placement courses, incrementally building in students the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in Advanced Placement courses and examinations. ... Curriculum program staff are responsible for ensuring that the curricula for Pre-AP and AP courses are qualitatively different from the curricula of parallel regular-level courses. The regulations in IHBB-R state that identified gifted/talented students are to be placed in Pre-Advanced Placement courses at the middle school level. At the high school level, students who are gifted/talented in mathematics are placed in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. Other options include seminars, mentorships, dualenrollment (with concurrent university credit) and/or independent study. These courses are not, however, limited to gifted/talented students. Policy IHCC establishes the Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement program for the Little Rock School District as a vehicle for providing quality educational opportunities for all its students through a rigorous, challenging curriculum. Importantly, the policy also mandates that there be no barriers to participation in Pre- Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses due to ethnicity, race, gender, national origin, creed, socioeconomic level, or handicapping condition. Further, District staff are required to include in its professional development program for teachers and counselors training in identifying and encouraging increasing percentages of students to participate in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. The following Pre-Advanced Placement science courses are offered in the Little Rock School District: Science 6 Pre-AP Science 7 Pre-AP Science 8 Pre-AP Physics I Pre-AP Biology I Pre-AP Chemistry I Pre-AP Advanced Science/Theoretical Research Pre-AP Desegregation Compliance One of the major issues in the Districts 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan relates to African-American enrollment in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. The obligations are as follows: Section 2.6: LRSD shall implement programs, polices, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in ... advanced placement courses ... and the gifted and talented program. Section 2.6.1: LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Section 2.6.2: LRSD shall implement programs to assist Afncan-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. In the appendix attached to this section is the text from a document filed on March 15, 2000, with the federal court in Little Rockour Interim Compliance Report, which includes details of the activities that we have completed in response to the above-stated obligations. These pages document the Districts efforts to ensure that students are not tracked academically and that increasing percentages of African-Americans emoll in both Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. Also attached in the appendix for this section is a recent report published by the Division of Instruction that documents progress so far in increasing enrollment and success of African-American students in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses. A summary of the findings follows:  The total enrollment of African-American students in AP courses has increased from 471 in 1997-98 to 695 in 1999-2000a 48 percent increase.  The total enrollment in AP courses for all students has increased from 1435 in 1997-98 to 1791 in 1999-2000a 25 percent increase. Improvements are the result of the following:  Improved recruitment of students by teachers and counselors for AP course enrollment.  Addition of several new AP cov 'ses to the LRSD curriculum.  The Boards decision in Decern jer 1998 to make all AP courses available in all five high schools.  Inclusion of enrollment in AP courses as one of the Quality Index indicators (the LRSD school accountability system).  Change in regulations so that students may now enroll in a Pre-AP or AP course if they earned at least a C in the previous course.  Increased awareness of goals through Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, NSF Project, policies and regulations adoption, and professional development. National Origin Issues In March 1999 the Office of Civil Rights conducted a routine compliance review of the programs for second-language students in the Little Rock School District. They found the District out of compliance in several areas. Rather than endure the expense and time for lengthy liltigation, the District voluntarily entered into a Commitment to Resolve agreement with OCR. One of the obligations in that agreement relates to this issue of student access to special opportunity programs. The policy regulations in IHBEA-R state the following: The District will ensure that LEP students have equal access to the Gifted and Talented programs and Pre-AP and AP couses at the secondary level throughout the District and to the University Studies program at Hall High School. The District will provide parents of LEP students information about any opportunities, requirements, selection criteria, or general information regarding the G/T program, Pre-AP and AP courses, and the University Studies program that is provided to the parents of non-LEP students. Screening tests should in the language of the students, if at all practicable. If nonverbal tests are adminstered, the instructions should be in the language of thestudents. Staff who administer GT screening tests to LEP students must have received training on addressing the needs of LEP students. Elementary Science (K-5) and Grade 6 (Middle School) Courses The adopted curriculum standards and grade-level benchmarks define the curriculum for grades K-6. The formal assessment program (described elsewhere in section 6 of this Update to the Annual Report) provides measurements of student progress. They also use teacher-created assessments, including observations of student performance to determine progress. The District has adopted Science and Technology for Children to support its K-6 science curriculum. Each of the four units in each grade level of STC provides students with an opportunity to explore science concepts and phenomena firsthand, to reflect on their observations, to share them with classmates, and to apply their learning in new situations. STC is fully aligned with the National Science Education Standards that were published by the National Research Council in 1996. The content standard. Unifying Concepts and Processes, is embedded throughout the K-6 curriculum modules: Systems, Order, and Organization. In each module, students learn to think and analyze in terms of systems. Evidence, Models, and Explanation. Using evidence to understand interactions, students learn to predict changes in natural and designed systems. Constancy, Change, and Measurement. Students learn that some systems remain constant, some systems change, and that different systems of measurement are used for different purposes. Evolution and Equilibrium. Throughout the modules, students learn that evolution is a series of changes that accounts for the present form and function of objects, organisms, and natural and designed systems. They also learn that equilibrium is a physical state in which forces and changes occur in opposite and off-setting directions. Form and Function. Students learn that form and function are complementary aspects of objects, organisms, and systems in the natural and designed world. The following is the display of the relationship between the instructional modules (units) for each grade levels and the other science curriculum standards that are being addressed. Grade 1 Weather Science as Inquiry Physical Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Solids and Liquids Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Comparing and Measuring Science as Inquiry Physical Science Science and Technology History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Grade 2 The Life Cycle of Butterflies Science as Inquiry Life Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Soils Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Changes Science as Inquiry Physical Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Balancing and Weighing Science as Inquiry Physical Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Grade 3 Plant Growth and Development Science as Inquiry Life Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Rocks and Minerals Science as Inquiry Physical Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Chemical Tests Science as Inquiry Physical Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Sound Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Grade 4 Animal Studies Science as Inquiry Life Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Land and Water Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Electric Circuits Science as Inquiry Physical Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Motion and Design Science as Inquiry Physical Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Grade 5 Microworlds Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Ecosystems Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Food Chemistry Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Floating and Sinking Science as Inquiry Physical Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Grade 6 Experiments with Plants Science as Inquiry Life Science Earth and Space Science History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Measuring Time Science as Inquiry Physical Science Earth and Space Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Magnets and Motors Science as Inquiry Physical Science Life Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes The Technology of Paper Science as Inquiry Physical Science Science and Technology Science in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Middle Schools (Grades 7-8) Science Courses (See Grade 6 above.) See the previous section for a discussion of grade 6 curriculum. The adopted curriculum standards and course benchmarks define the curriculum for grades 7-8. The formal assessment program (described elsewhere in section 6 of this Update to the Annual Report) provides measurements of student progress. They also use teacher-created assessments, including observations of student performance to determine progress. The District has adopted Science and Life Issues (SALI) to support its grade 7 curriculum, effective fall 2000. Science and Life Issues focuses on the life sciences and on personal decision-making. The program is divided into three thematic segments, each aligned with the national science standards and each intended to facilitate greater depth of understanding and to provide opportunities for students to link their learning on various topics. 1. 2. My Body and Me. Students investigate concepts and issues related to sustaining life. A major goal of this unit is to provide a sound foundation for rigorous, evidence-based decision making about health issues, such as the appropriate use of medication and nutritional requirements in the human diet. For example, students simulate the role of placebos in studies of medication for human use. After further investigating the range of human variability, students consider what types of personal health decisions they would make. Living Partnerships. Students investigate the relationships between humans and the physical and living environment. Evolution and ecosystems are the focus of this part of the course. Adaptations in human physiology are reconsidered in light of their evolutionary implications. Activities involve students in maintaining small ecosystems, such as terraria or aquaria, investigating local ecosystems, and exploring examples of the relationships between humans and other organisms. For example, students investigate the interaction between humans and dogs, including dogs behavior and other adaptations, the effect humans have had on dogs (through breeding), and the cultural effect their domestication has had on humans. 3. Using Tools luid Ideas. Students investigate the ways in which humans use tools and ideas to adapt their external environment. Such adaptation is examined in terms of the nervous system, behavior, and the unique ways in which people are able to modify their surroundings. They explore issues related to the wide variety of physical, linguistic, technological, and biotechnological adaptations that increasingly determine the nature and quality of human life. Human adaptations for communication, for example, range from the use of language and other symbolic systems to modem information technology\nphysical adaptations range from simple tools to robotics. Issues explored include the ethical implications of these rapid changes in technology. A copy of the conelation of the National Science Standards and the units in this program are attached in the appendix to this section. The District has adopted the Issues. Evidence, and You to support its grade 8 science curriculum, effective fall 2001. Issues, Evidence and You (lEY) is an integrated experience-based science course for grade 8. In addition to the la\u0026gt;oratory materials used in teaching this course, students are issued journals, in which they keep their writing relating to investigations, where they record the outcomes they obtain, and where they write up their analysis of the data they collect and the inferences and conclusions that data suggest. A copy of the correlation of the National Science Standards and the units in this program are attached in the appendix to this section. High School (Grades 9-121 Science Courses The adopted curriculum standards and course benchmarks define the curriculum for grades 9-12. The formal assessment program (described elsewhere in section 6 of this Update to the Annual Report) provides measurements of student progress. They also use teacher-created assessments, including observations of student performance to determine progress. The courses listed below have been standards-based for several years. District leaders have concentrated on providing appropriate teacher training to support teachers in understanding the standards, in developing their content knowledge, in adopting effective teaching strategies, in creating assessments, and in the appropriate use of materials (calculators, software, Internet resources, textbooks, manipulatives, etc.). Curriculum maps for each course have been developed so that teachers can see the correlations between the standards and the assessments and between the standards and the materials that have been adopted. Courses offered for high school credit include the following: Physics I (Active Physics) Physics I Pre-AP Biology I Biology I Pre-AP Chemistry I Chemistry I Pre-AP Physics II AP Human Anatomy and Physiology Biology IIA (first-semester course offered at Hall High only in the dual-credit program with UALR) Biology II AP Chemistry II AP Geology and Space Science Environmental Science AP Advanced Science and Theoretical Research Pre-AP Microbiology (one semester\nParkview Magnet only) Qualitative Analysis (one semester\nParkview Magnet only) Applied Statistics and Technical Writing (one semester\nParkview Magnet only) Environmental Health (one semester\nParkview Magnet only) Human Anatomy and Physiology (one semester\nParkview Magnet only) Organic Chemistry (one semester\nParkview Magnet only) All regular-level courses are taught according to the adopted standards and course-level benchmarks. These courses are taught at grade-level. Physics I (Active Physics) All regular-level freshman students in the Little Rock School District are required to take Physics I (Active Physics), effective fall 1999. From this course, they may also take Physics I Pre-AP, which is taught at a more theoretical level and will lead them to Physics II AP. Active Physics is a different species of physics course. It has the mechanics, optics, and electricity of traditional courses, but not where one would expect to find them. In a traditional physics course, forces are taught in the fall, waves in the winter, and solenoids in the spring. In Active Physics, students are introduced to physics concepts on a need- to-know basis as they explore issues in Sports, Medicine, Predictions, Communications, Transportation, and Home. The content of the course is carefully aligned with the following National Science Standards: Physical Science Unifying Concepts and Processes Science as Inquiry Science and TechnologyScience in Personal and Social Perspectives History and Nature of Science Biology I and Chemistry I The adopted curriculum standards and course benchmarks define the curriculum for Biology I and Chemistry I. The formal assessment program (described elsewhere in section 6 of this Update to the Annual Report) provides measurements of student progress. In addition, teachers will use the released items from the State Benchmark Examination in Biology I to assess student growth. They also use teacher-created assessments, including observations of student performance to determine progress. Biology I and Chemistry I have been standards-based for several years. District leaders have concentrated on providing appropriate teacher training to support teachers in understanding the standards, in developing their content knowledge, in adopting effective teaching strategies, in creating assessments, and in the appropriate use of materials (lab equipment, software, Internet resources, textbooks, etc.). Curriculum maps for Biology I and Chemistry I have been developed so that teachers can see the correlations between the standards and the assessments and between the standards and the materials that have been adopted. Program materials will be updated during the next regular adoption cycle for science, which is during the 2000-2001 school year. Biology I and Chemistry I both have Pre- Advanced Placement courses that uses the College Board Pre-AP materials. Eight biology and chemistry teachers attended the College Board sponsored AP/Pre-AP training in February 2000. The training focused on effective curriculum and teaching strategies to prepare students for enrollment and success in AP Biology II and AP Chemistry II. Regular-level Biology I and Chemistry I will adopt high quality programs and materials during the 2000-2001 school year, and all teachers will receive professional development related to those programs and materials. Chemistry in the Community (ChemCom) and Biology, a Community Context (BioCom) are resources that are currently being piloted in some schools. These or programs of similar quality will be adopted for use during the 2000-2001 school year. Pre-AP Science Courses All Pre-AP courses are taught above grade-level and must be qualitatively differentiated from the regular-level curriculum and aligned both with the AP courses to which they lead and the ACT transition documents. Advanced Placement Courses All AP courses are taught according to the College Board syllabi provided for Advanced Placement courses. Improvement of African-American Student Achievement Section 2.7 of the Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan states the following: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of Afncan-American students. Attached in the appendix to this section are the pages from the Interim Compliance Report that was filed with the federal court on March 15, 2000, that discuss the Districts efforts thus far in this area of critical importance. These pages include the following topics:  How LRSD aligned all its planning efforts to ensure coherence.  An explanation of the LRSD Student Success Model.  A list of the policies that have been approved to ensure high expectations for all students.  A list of the administrative regulations that are now in place.  A discussion of the curriculum content standards and grade-level and course benchmarks.  A discussion of the work in progress to develop Instructional Standards with a list of the resources that have been consulted.  A list of the programs that have been created or refined to ensure student success. This section is not specifically about mathematics or science, but, rather, student achievement in general. 5 K-12 Curriculum Implenientation Plan The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics published Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics in March of 1989. The Little Rock School District and other school districts and institutions of higher education realized that math programs under implementation at the time didnt measure up to the standards. The District began steps to systemically move to a more effective mathematics and science program for all students as early as 1991. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) organized a Deans Committee that included the Dean of the College of Education, the Dean of the College of Science and Mathematics along with faculty from those two colleges and elementary and secondary teachers from the central Arkansas area. The Deans Committee met monthly to discuss how UALR could change its mathematics courses to meet the needs of students and teachers in the public schools. From that beginning corporate support and Eisenhower funds were gained to fimd the first Math Crusade course. District teachers began taking the 3-hour Math Crusade course through UALR in 1991. Later, the Arkansas Department of Higher Education applied for and received funding from the National Science Foundation to fund the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (ASSI). Substantial involvement from higl,er education was realized when UALR faculty members worked alongside math and science leaders to become trainers for the Arkansas Crusades: K-4 Crusade, Math Crusade, Science Crusade. From 1991 to the end of ASSI in 1999 over 300 LRSD teachers participated in the six-hour graduate course known as K-4 Crusade. Most of these teachers took the course through UALR where it was team taught by College of Education faculty and public school teachers with masters degrees. About 60 science teachers participated in the three-hour graduate course known as the Science Crusade and about 80 teachers participated in Math Crusade. Science Crusade and Math Crusade were offered through UALR and other state institutions of higher education and were team-taught by university math and science faculty and public school teachers (adjunct professors). All three Crusade courses were organized around the national standards in mathematics (NCTM, 1989) and the draft standards for science which were published by the National Research Council in the National Science Education Standards (1996). The number of teachers who participated in Crusades training represented over 50% of all LRSD science and math instructors. The District embedded the national standards (and correlated state curriculum frameworks) in practice and policy. The LRSD Strategic Plan (1995) that was approved by the Board of Directors included the establishment of standards in the core curricular areas of math, science, reading/language arts, and social studies and stated that 9 out of 10 students would meet or exceed those standards. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (1998) included a goal to increase the number of students successfully completing algebra I and higher level mathematics courses and that all students would be proficient in mathematics by graduation. Board Policy lA (1999) required that curriculum standards be adopted in the core subject areas. Related policies require that professional development, adopted programs, and curriculum materials all address and support the Districts standards. The above background is given to illustrate that the District has been moving to standards-based math and science programming for about a decade now. Most of the normal professional development that math and science teachers have participated in over the past 10 years has been geared to helping students achieve the national standards. A renewed and intensified effort to become totally standards-based was undertaken with the awarding of the CPMSA grant from the National Science Foundation in 1998. Following is the year by year plan for curriculum implementation starting with 1998-99 and extending until 2002-2003. Year 1998-99 In 1998-99 the Board approved curriculum standards for mathematics and science for grades K- 12. Professional development for math and science teachers during that year informed teachers about the standards and how the existing resources could be used to address the standards. Over 50% of math and science teachers, grades K-12, had previously been participants in a sustained program of 45 clock-hours to 90 clock-hours of standards related training through the Arkansas Crusades. All teachers made some level of shift from what they were doing toward what they needed to do to address the Districts standards. Principals were inducted into the standards-based movement during a two-day Principals Institute Retreat held at the Clarion Resort in Hot Springs, Arkansas in 1997. The two-day retreat was focused on providing principals with knowledge and tools to start improving math and science programs in their schools. Partial funding from the Central Arkansas Math/Science Business Education Partnership was used to support the Institute. The Principals Institute of 1998-99 also focused on mathematics and science. All principals rotated through concurrent sessions where they participated in model standards-based activities presented by science and math specialists. The purpose of this experience was to show principals what standards-based math and science should look like in their schools. All school counselors attended a full day inservice entitled Raising the Bar in January of 1998. Topics on the agenda were TIMSS report. National Math and Science Standards, SAT-9 results, enrollment data for upper level math and science courses, and success rate for students in upper level courses. Frances Brown, Director of Academic Services for the College Board, presented on the role of counselors and teachers in getting students prepared for and enrolled in higher level courses. Counselors have had annual sessions related to progress in student enrollment and success in higher level math and science courses. Several teachers asked to pilot some standards-based math and science materials. A total of 18 teachers representing all teachers at Romine Elementary School and the fourth grade teachers at Jefferson piloted Investigations in Number. Data and Space and 6 teachers at Rockefeller and Chicot piloted Science and Technology for Children modules. Year 1999-2000 Benchmarks were developed by committees of teachers in math and science for each Board adopted curriculum standard. The benchmarks are knowledge, skills, and attitudes that students must gain along the way to ensure that students meet the grade level standards by the end of each year. Each teacher in the District attended professional development on the newly developed benchmarks aimed at aligning instruction with the benchmarks. Teachers spent time identifying the instructional content and strategies that they would use to address the benchmarks. All high school science teachers participated in a two-day professional development session coordinated by ACT, Inc. entitled The Instruction-Assessment Link. The activity required teachers to map their instruction in terms of ACT Assessment objectives. Science teachers worked in vertical teams to ensure that important content and skills were appropriately addressed in the 9-12 high school science sequence. Middle school and high school teachers of mathematics participated in professional development to further align the grades 6-12 mathematics sequence to make sure that the mathematics program at each step includes the important content/skills prerequisite to success at the next step in the sequence. The goal of the mathematics program is for all students to reach the grade-level standards and at the same time to be well prepared for entry in the next challenging mathematics course in the sequence leading to high school graduation. The Little Rock School Districts graduation requirements include rigorous and challenging mathematics requisites for all students such as algebra I for all students, geometry for all students, and a third algebra-based course for all students. The third course may be either algebra II or statistics. Increasing numbers of students are completing the recommended curriculum that includes a fourth unit of mathematics. Applied math, consumer math, basic math and other such courses have not been offered to district students for several years. In 1999-2000 the District established by Board Policy IGE Pre-Advanced Placement courses, beginning in grade 6, that will reflect LRSD standards and benchmarks and the College Boards syllabus requirements for Advanced Placement courses, incrementally building in students the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in Advanced Placement courses and examinations. On February 25-26, 2000 one hundred and eleven (111) secondary mathematics and science teachers from the District attended a two-day AP/Pre-AP conference in Little Rock. The conference focused both on the content and skills that students need to be successful in AP math and science courses and the pedagogy teachers need to deliver the content and skills to students. The one-hundred and eleven math and science teachers who participated were out of a total to two-hundred-one (201) total teachers at the secondary level in math and science. In 1999-2000 the District began implementation of high quality mathematics and science programs with a significant number of teachers. A high quality mathematics or science program is one that addresses curriculum standards and benchmarks at each grade level or course that reflect district/state/national standards. Second, a high quality mathematics or science program includes classroom instruction that fully addresses those standards and embodies research-based teaching strategies and techniques that have proven successful in assuring that all children learn the standards. Third, a high quality math or science program has assessment embedded in instruction that determines on a day-to-day basis if students are learning the standards. Fourth, a high quality math or science program has adopted materials that support and facilitate teaching and assessing the standards. Fifth, a high quality math or science program includes intensive and sustained professional development that focuses on the standards for every teacherThe current year (1999-2000) implementation plan for high quality mathematics is summarized in the following chart. Grade Level/ Course Grade 3 Math Grade 4 Math Grade 5 Math Grade 6 Math Grade 7 Math Grade 8 Math High school Pre-calculus AP Calculus Number/% of Teachers 99/100% 92/100% 89/100% 19/100% 17/100% 18/100% 3/18% 6/100% Schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools 2 of 5 high schools All 5 high schools Adopted Program Investigations in Number, Data and Space__________________ Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space__________________ Connected Math Project Connected Math Project Connected Math Project Pacesetter Pre-Calculus College Board AP Program Full implementation or Replacement module___________ Replacement module Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Replacement Modules Replacement Modules Full implementation Full implementation The current year (1999-2000) implementation plan for high quality science is summarized in the following chart\nGrade Level/ Course Grade 1 Science Grade 2 Science Grade 3 Science Grade 4 Science Grade 5 Science Grade 6 Science Grade 9 Physics AP Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Environmental Science Number/ % of Teachers 104/100% 98/100% 99/100% 92/100% 89/100% 21/100% 19/83% 14/100% Schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools Adopted Program Science and Technology for Children________________ Science and Technology for Children_____________ Science and Technology for Children________________ Science and Technology for Children________________ Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children________________ Active Physics College Board AP Program Full implementation or Replacement Module Replacement Module Replacement Module Replacement Module Replacement Module Replacement Module Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Year 2000-2001 During 2000-2001 math and science teachers will work in vertical teams (College Board Vertical Teams) to refine the Pre-AP courses from grades 6-11 to make sure all participating students are being adequately prepared to enroll in and succeed in AP Courses in math and science. In addition science vertical teams will revisit the Curriculum Standards and Benchmarks for high school science to make doubly sure they are totally aligned with national/state standards for science and the districts assessment program. As all math and science courses are being strengthened and improved, additional high quality programs will be implemented across the K-12 spectrum. The 2000-2001 implementation plan for high quality mathematics programs is summarized in the following chart. Additions from the previous year are highlighted in red. Grade Level/ Course Grade 2 Math Grade 3 Matli Grade 4 Math Number/% of Teachers 98/100% 99/100% 92/100% Schools Adopted Program Grade 5 Math Grade 6 Math Grade 7 Math Grade 8 Matli *Grade 9 Algebra I High School Pre-Calculus AP Calculus 89/100% 19/100% 17/100% 18/100% 12/100% 10/59% 6/100% All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools -All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools Investigations in Number. Data and Space Investigations in Number. Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Connected Math Project Connected Math Project Connected Math Project I CAN Leant Algebra 1 computer course Pacesetter Pre-Calculus College Board AP Program Full implementation or Replacement module Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation * Pending Board approval at the April 27 Board Meeting The 2000-2001 implementation schedule for high quality science programs is summarized in the following chart. The additions to the plan from the previous year are highlighted in red. Grade Level/ Course Number/ %of Teachers Schools Adopted Program Grade 1 Science 18/18% 7 elementary schools Science and Technology For Children Full implementation, Replacement Module(s), or Training Only Full implementation Grade 1 Science Grade 2 Science Grade 2 Science Grade 3 Science Grade 3 Science Grade 4 Science Grade 4 Science Grade 5 Science Grade 5 Science Grade 6 Science Grade 7 Science # Grade 8 Science Grade 9 Physics # Grade 10 Biology # Grade 11 Chemistry AP Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Environmental Science 86/82% 34/35% 64/65% 20/20% 79/80% 35/38% 57/62% 23/26% 66/74% 21/100% 16/100% 16/100% 19/83% 20/100% 14/100% 14/100% 28 elementary schools 11 elementary schools 24 elementary schools 7 elementary schools 28 elementary schools 14 elementary schools 21 elementary schools 9 schools 26 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Life Issues (SALT) - Lawrence Hall of Science Issues, Evidence and You (SEPUP)__________________ Active Physics Biology, A Community Context (BIOCOM) and otiier possible programs Chemistry in the Community (CHEMCOM) and other possible programs College Board AP Program 2 Replacement Modules Full implementation 2 Replacement Modules Full implementation 2 Replacement Modules Full implementation 2 Replacement Modules Full implementation 2 Replacement Modules_________ Full implementation Full implementation Training Only Full implementation Training Only Training Only Full implementation # Training for 2001-2002 implementation will be provided. Training will be provided on the named program as well as other possible programs for biology and chemistry in preparation for the normal State textbook/program adoption process during the 2000-2001 school year. Year 2001-2002 The 2001-2002 implementation schedule for high quality math programs is summarized in the following chart. Additions from the previous year are highlighted in red. Grade Level/ Course Number/% of Teachers Schools Adopted Program Grade K Math 109/100% All 35 elementai'y schools Investigations in Number, Data and Space Full implementation, Replacement module, or Training Only Full implementation Grade 1 Math 104/100% Grade 2 Math 98/100% Grade 3 Math 99/100% Grade 4 Math 92/100% Grade 5 Math 89/100% Grade 6 Math 19/100% Grade 7 Math 17/100% Grade 8 Math 18/100% All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools Investigations in Number. Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Cormected Math Project Connected Math Project Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation * Grade 9 Algebra 1 Grade 9-10 Geometry Grade 9-11 Algebra 2 High School Pre-Calculus AP Calculus * 12/100% 22/100K. 30/100% 10/59% 6/100% All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools Pending Board approval on April 27, 2000 Connected Math Project\nPre- AP algebra 1 will use the College Board Pre-AP Program I CAN Learn Algebra 1 computer course To Be Selected Standards-based programs\nPre-AP geomeny will use the College Board Pre-AP Program To Be Selected Standards-based programs\nPre-AP algebra 2 will use the College Board Pre-AP Program Pacesetter Pre-Calculus College Board AP Program Full implementation Full implementation Training only Training only Full implementation Full implementation The 2001-2002 implementation schedule for high quality science programs is outlined in the following chart. Additions from the previous year are highlighted in red. Grade Level/ Course Grade 1 Science Grade 2 Science Grade 3 Science Number/ %of Teachers 104/100% 98/100% 99/100% Schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools Adopted Program Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Full implementation or Replacement Module Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Grade 4 Science Grade 5 Science Grade 6 Science Grade 9 Physics Grade 10 Biolog)' 92/100% 89/100% 21/100% 19/83% 20/100% Grade 11 Chemistry 14/100% AP Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Environmental Science 14/100% Year 2002-2003 All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Active Physics Biology, A Community Context or other appropriate program that teachers recommend\nPre-AP Biology will use the College Board Program Qiemistry in the Community or other appropriate program that teachers recommend\nPre-AP Chemistry will use the College Board Program College Board AP Program Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementatio i The implementation schedule for high quality mathematics programs for 2002-2003 is summarized in the chart below. Additions from the previous year are highlighted in red. Grade Level/ Course Grade K Math Grade 1 Math Grade 2 Math Grade 3 Math Grade 4 Math Grade 5 Ma Grade 6 Math Grade 7 Math Grade 8 Math Number/% of Teachers 109/100% 104/100% 98/100% 99/100% 92/100% 89/100% 19/100% 17/100% 18/100% Schools Adopted Program All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools All 8 middle schools Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Investigations in Number, Data and Space Connected Math Project Connected Math Project Connected Math Project\nPre- I AP algebra 1 will use the Full implementation, Replacement module, or Training Only Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation *1Grade 9 Algebra 1 Grade 9-10 Geometry Grade 9-11 Algebra 2 High School Pre-Calculus AP Calculus * 12/100% 22/100% 30/100% 10/59% 6/100% All 5 high schools All 5 high sch\u0026lt;x)ls All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools Pending Board approval on April 27, 2000 College Board Program for Pre- AP________________________ I CAN Leam Algebra 1 computer course To Be Selected Standards-based programs\nPre-AP geometry will use the College Board Pre-AP Program To Be Selected Standards-based programs\nPre-AP algebra 2 will use the College Board Pre-AP Program Pacesetter Pre-Calculus College Board AP Program 1 Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation The 2002-2003 implementation schedule for high quality science programs is outlined in the following chart. Grade Level/ Course Grade 1 Science Grade 2 Science Grade 3 Science Grade 4 Science Grade 5 Science Grade 6 Science Grade 9 Physics Grade 10 Biology Grade 11 Chemistry Number/ %of Teachers 104/100% 98/100% 99/100% 92/100% 89/100% 21/100% 19/83% 20/100% 14/100% Schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 35 elementary schools All 8 middle schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools All 5 high schools Adopted Program Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Science and Technology for Children Active Physics\nPre-AP physics will use the College Board Pre- AP Program Biology, A Community Context or other appropriate program that teachers recommend\nPre-AP Biology will use the College Board Pre- AP Program Chemistry in the Community or other appropriate program that teachers recommend\nPre-AP Chemistry will use the College Board Pre-AP Program Full implementation or Replacement Module Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation Full implementation AP Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Environmental Science 14/100% All 5 high schools College Board AP Program Full implementation By the end of year 2002-2003 all grade levels and courses at all schools will have high quality mathematics and science programs. Standards-Based Mathematics And Science Implementation Update The Little Rock School District is involved in a process of systematically moving toward full standards-based programming in mathematics and science at every grade level and in every course with all teachers at all schools. Full standards-based programming has several identifiable attributes. First, curriculum standards and benchmarks at each grade level or course that address district/state/national standards must be in place. Second, classroom instruction must fully address those standards and must embody research based teaching strategies and techniques that have proven successful in assuring that all children learn the standards. Third, assessment must be embedded in instruction that determines on a day-to-day basis if students are learn\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_371","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Middle Schools''","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":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Middle Schools''"],"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/371"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\nMIDDLE SCHOOLSoo_\u0026gt;, zn zmm (A on Middle Schools 1. Memorandum to middle school principals from Bonnie Lesley in July 28, 1999, Learning Links: attached speech by Hayes Mizell, Six Steps to an Achieving Middle School. 2. Memorandum to middle school principals in March 3, 1999, Learning Links: attached article, Middle Grades Education Initiative from SREB. 3. Memorandum to middle school principals in March 3, 1999, Learning Links: attached article from SREB, Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades\nReadiness for Success. 4. Memorandum to middle school principals in March 3, 1999, Learning Links: attached article from SREB, Improving Teaching in the Middle Grades\nHigher Standards for Students Arent Enough. 5. 6. 1. Memorandum to middle school principals in Mar. 22,2000, Learning Links with attached copy of Quality Middle School Leadership by David Weller. Memorandum to middle school principals in Oct. 4, 2000, Learning Links\nattached article, The Middle Years: Are US Middle Schools Up to the Task? E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to selected staff, July 14, 2000\nattached speech by Hayes Mizell, Battling for Middle Grades Reform. -A/? 1 I I I -L '?/?5/'79 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PUTASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 I July 27, 1999 i TO\nMiddle School Principals II FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley\n^ssociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Advise to Middle Schools I Linda Austin found on the internet the attached copy of a speech by Hayes Mizell. You will want to share it, we think, with your staff. It is a powerful outline of how to improve student achievement! BAL/adg Attachment i i I i f i II Page 1 of 10 Home I LatgstUpdates | Ngws^ | MiddleWeb Index | Reforming Schools ! A | I j attended by middlejchool teachers and administrators from throughout was Director of the Program for Student Achievement the school district. Mizell is at the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.] i Six Steps to an Achieving Middle School ! ! d aX wiih So PP'' Oilb say thal Fd t' Citing recent data from state assessments, the National Assessment of increase levels of student achievement. I assume hed,er schools ------need to you are here because you are professionals who recognize that many students are not performing up to their academic potential  and state to demonstrate that you Student nArTnrmorr -.1^_____  , . or because you are student performance in your classrooms and schools. can increase levels of me say it again. mcrease student achievement. Yes, parents are their children's achievement ht H . i, their children's k or your experience. Yes, communities can and th developmental opportunities they need to build self-^ dence ^d the desire to achieve, but community support is no substitute for what should be the schools' academic focus. If you cannot help your studenU achieve at higher levels, who can? Will and Effort Produce Results 1 IJmow your work is complicated by great obstacles. There are classes that are too big. There are too -r--------------------------r* -------- a------xxiVAv oiv uiat arc 100 and learning. There roo many their minds but learning. There are even some of your students who seem to have eveiything on L....... colleagues unwilling to invest the time and effort are too many it takes to develop and apply the new attitudes. behaviors, knowledge skUls necessary ,o increase sr^fen, ichie^^ Xher Xes are daunting, and you know better an I that It is not easy to overcome them. It takes steady, hard http://www.middleweb.com/HMcharlotte.html unmI I I ! I Page 2 of 10 work. That is what you tell your students it takes to achieve, and it applies to you as well. We live in a culture that values convenience, short-cuts, expediency, and painless learning Teacher^\nmboT'or  of this culture. They look for the progrm, or TthTd T \u0026gt;' their jobs easier. Indeed, there are a bl of resources in the education marketplace, and some of them are helpful, but if educators properly, nearly all these resources require more rather than less work. There a ^2E|^I^H^^ntachieyen^ Raising the performance levels of your students means that yon as * to also EerfonumijgtoTj^ use them are no shortcuts to Let us assume that everyone here wants to increase student achievement, and that each of you has the will and IS prepared to exert the effort it.takes to reach that goal. How do you go about it? WeU I cannot develop and prescribe what I would call an IRP - an Individual Refon^ ! fo Jach of middfe^Lhoo!\" T Z T Imou canhim your schools into achieving middlesclwls. In fact, I believe there are a series ofstens vou can tekp tn you go about it? Well, I next level. are a series of steps you can take to take your schools to the Not merely schools that include grades six through eight and that are now called \"middle schools \" Not merely schools that perhaps include teams, advisories, exploratoiy wheels, block scheduling and \"-'y hoes  , .lIo'iXT\" about the developmental characteristics of the young adolescents they are teaching. These, cl^actenstics of \"middle schools\" but they do not automatically produce schools. \" There are too many educators who' are ft, .are ,_____ _______'achieving middle -A satisfied with just being a middle school but who do Jand processes as the foundanonforlfanlfoiming '' their schools into achieving middle schoiilsl --------------------------------------~ What Is an Achieving Middle School? ^Mo I mean by \"achjeyin^middle^^ whose mission, ethos, culture, structure _gani^n cumculum, co-curnculum, and instruction is explicitly dedicated tn the .^gryjtudeg^ every a^Tin the~building. It is a school where fromthe time a visitor walks in the front door there is no doubt that the schools focus is on advancing the achievement of every student ^d^eyety adult. It is not a school where the administrators and teachers assume they know all they Xe h\",Th''d'^ In the achTeving teach Jd .To\nha.fliaa!lhave something to. ^d learn. This belief is stated and restated, and it is a fundamental of the school. operating principle I WMt to briefly outline six steps towards becoming an achieving middle school. But let up front that I am not going to include some \"basics\" in these steps. For example, I say that everyone m your schools, from principals to school secretaries W uvavh^L lu luuu service custodial staff must come to school each day prepared to care about every student they encounter. You cannot have an achieving middle school unless it is me say right am not going to to teachers to food service and an authentically caring middle school. I m not going to say that your schools have to be safe\nnot only free of violence, harassment, and mn TTll ri 3 II AM omAniT ct-nzl ante _x___i  .  intimidation among students, but between teachers and students. No school 7 ^tuuciits, out oeiween teachers and students. No school can be an achieving midglesc^ol unless both students and staff feel safe. But there i^^^^S^hS^Emd7fs^feW^ nvpr nnlTAn onH fhot ic 1110+ 00 vxvvix overlooked and that is just as basic. Middle schools have to be safe for student.s uiai Ddsic. .vname schools have to be safe for students and adults to express theu- opinions, disagree, and even debate. Students and adults have to know they will be heard and http://www.middleweb.com/HMcharlotte.html 7/27/99?age J 01 10 that constructive dialogue will be practiced and honored. I am not going to say that everyone in your schools, from administrators to teachers to classified staff to students, have to demonstrate respect for one another. No school can be an achieving middle school unless every person practices mutual respect every day. I am not going to say that your school has to be more dedicated to students who are low-performin\nsocially alienated, or otherwise at the margins than to all other students. No school can be an achieving middle school unless it allocates more talent, effort, and other resources to the students most in need. ig, I am not going to include any of these practices in the steps its takes to become an achieving middle school because all of them are fundamental. If there is anyone here who does not know that caring. respect, safety, and disproportionate attention to those with the greatest needs is basic to an achieving middle school, there is nothing I can say that will help you. No matter what other steps you may take, if you ignore these \"basics\" you will never have achieving middle schools. Now let us consider the six steps. Step One: Make Achievement the Primary Purpose Forge a consensus among all the adults in the school that advancing achievement is the school's primary purpose. This step may be obvious, but it is surprising how many schools are not really clear about their overarching purpose. These schools typically have a whole list of \"priorities\" even though it should be clear that not everything can be a priority. It simply is not possible to give equal attention to every issue or concem. Some things are more important than others and the most important of all is student achievement. If the adults in the school -- from the administrators to the teachers to the classified staff - do not agree on that, then it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the school to become an achieving middle school. I Of course, it is not easy to get agreement that the school's primary purpose is to advance achievement. There are teachers who, as one principal said, \"consider themselves to be the last independent contractors.\" In other words, they believe that once they have been hired by the school system, it is their God-given right to do what they want in the way they want to do it. \\\\Tien administrators and other teachers in the school allow this attitude to prevail, there can be no achieving middle school. At one low-performing school I visited, I learned that some teachers act as though participating in faculty meetings is an optional activity\nsometimes they participate, sometimes they do not. While it is essential for faculty meetings to be well-organized and substantive - many schools now use these meetings for staff development - it speaks volumes when teachers believe they can build a firewall between what they do and the welfare of the school. This is why in so many middle schools there may be one or two very good teams, but many more teams that are mediocre or worse. In the achieving middle school, teachers cannot do their own thing and principals cannot hide in their offices or devote themselves almost exclusively to adrninistrative tasks. Instead, there have to be visible manifestations of trust, give-and-take, extra effort, community, and mutual accountability among adults in the school, all focused on improving the performance levels of both students and adults. Unless there is agreement that this is the school's central focus, and unless administrators. 4 ii http://www.niiddleweb.com/HMcharlotte.html 7/27/99( Page 4 of 10 teachers, and classified personnel work together, there can be no achieving school. Step Two: Identify Everyone's Talents and Interests I 1 Systematically identify and use the talents, abilities, and interests of all adults and students in the school, as well as students' families. I I As most of us experience school, it is a place where there is an underlying assumption that students do not know certain things and it is the school's responsibility to help them learn those things. This is a deficit approach to education_where the emphasis is on what students do not know and cannot do rather than on what they do know and can do. In schools where there are students who come from low-income families, or those who speak little or no English, or those who are from an ethnic or racial group different from the majority of teachers in the school, it is not unusual that these factors influence educators' assumptions about what students know and can do, or their academic potential. The achieving middle school acknowledges this reality and seeks to compensate for it by systematically developing an inventory of the talents, abilities, and interests of each.student_and a^lt in the school. The purpose of this process is twofold: it makes concrete the school's belief that every I i person in the school is valued and has something to contribute, and it provides the school's administrators and teachers with a complete list of the human resources available to advance the achievement of individuals within the school community. The process of developing this inventory could commence with the new school year by focusing on the class of rising sixth graders and the school's staff. It could then be repeated with each successive class of sixth graders, as well as updated for each class as it progresses through grades seven and eight. The task of developing the inventory and the database of talents, abilities, and interests could probably best be organized and carried out under the leadership of a small committee of school staff, students, and representatives of students' families I It is important to understand that the use of the inventory would not be to identify people to perform support functions unrelated to increasing achievement. The purpose is not to find people who will bake more and better cookies, or answer the telephone in the school office, or accompany students on field trips, but to uncover and put to work the human resources that otherwise go unidentified, unacknowledged, and unused in every school. Even though people would have to volunteer to participate in the inventory and to share their talents with others, I am confident that most people would welcome the opportunity. Consider the possibilities: Students who speak a language that teachers and other students do not speak could provide basic, practical instruction in that language. Any teacher, regardless of the subject they teach, who likes youth literature could organize and facilitate book discussion groups with students. Students who are computer whizzes could help teachers improve their technology skills. School staff who have hobbies such as chess or gardening or photography could help students develop these skills. Each of these teaching and learning experiences might occur on a small scale, between individuals or in small groups, but the objective would be for them to be pervasive and sustained so that everyone in the school, not just students, is seeking to achieve a new proficiency. If these activities were pervasive, they could develop a powerful climate of achievement. Step Three: Use Standards to Define Learning Goals http\n//www.middleweb.com/HMcharlotte.html 7/27/99Embrace and use content and performance standards to clearly delineate student learning goals, and engage teachers, students and families in understanding what these standards mean. 1 i I I i If your school system and schools want middle school students to achieve at higher levels, the students have to know what you expect them to achieve, and the level of proficiency they rnust demonstrate as evidenc^Tth^h^ have achieved it. In the past, and perhaps in too many classrooms 'today, the curriculum has been the textbook, even though schools did not really expect that students would learn everything in the textbook. Instead, the schools played a guessing game with students, saying, in effect, \"Here is this book\nwe will cover what we can, and we think it is really important for you to learn some of what is in the textbook. We will not tell you what it is we expect you to learn, but at different points during the school year we will give you a test to determine if you have learned it. If you study what is in this textbook and if you are very good at guessing what we think you should learn, you will perform well on the tests.\" This, of course, is not a process that fosters either good teaching or significant learning. If schools really understand standards and use them effectively, standards can be a pathway tojaore effective teaching and deeperleaming. Standards should result from asking the question, \"What should students know and be able to do as a result of dieir educational experiences in the middle grafres?\" The challenge is for the standards that ansv ,\nr that question to be concrete and limited. They should not be a long list of more standards than it is possible for teachers to address or more than it is possible for students to learn, but restricted to what is most important for students to know and to be able to do. ! I 1 i When standards meet this criterion, they can be a constructive force for better teaching and deeper student learning. The focus becomes what students should learn, and what and how teachers should teach to cause students to perform at standard. If a student does not meet standards, the responsibility is shared equally by the student, the teacher, and the school. The student has to make greater effort. The teacher has to change his or her instruction. The school has to provide the student more time for learning, perhaps different learning contexts, and certainly additional opporttmities to demonstrate that he or she can perform at standard. The purpose of standards is not to penalize students but for teachers and schools to take whatever actions are necessary to cause students to meet the standards. Step Four: Focus Staff Development on Student Achievement Reform staff development so it is rooted in what teachers and administrators need to know and be able to do to increase student achievement, and evaluate the results of staff development. If student achievement is going to increase, teachers and administrators will have to make it happen. But they cannot increase student achievement unless they have and apply the attitudes, behaviors, knowledge, and skills that are correlates of increased student achievement. We know that if for whatever reasons teachers believe that students cannot achieve much, the results will be that the students do not achieve much. We know that if teachers are not deeply knowledgeable about the subjects they teach, and if they do not manifest a contagious excitement about those subjects, students will not believe those subjects are important and they will not devote much effort to learning them. We know that if principals do not i J 1, http://www.middleweb.com/HMcharlotte.htinl 7/27/99focus their faculties on high quality instruction and student work, and if they do not consistently monitor and seek to improve teachers' instruction, then significant increases in student achievement will not occur. ( ( i { Even though we know all this, most school systems and schools do not effectively use the greatest resource available to them-- staff development -- to increase the performance leyels_qteachers and administrators. Most staff development is not carefully conceived or narrowly targeted to help teachers and administrators develop and use the specific skills they need to increase student achievement. Even worse, staff development is almost never rigorously evaluated to determine what educators learned or how effectively they applied what they learned to their classrooms and schools. Few school systems and schools invest enough in staff development, but most do not really know what their total expenditures are because staff development activities are diffuse, spread across many different functions and programs. In the achieving middle school, however, the principal and the school leadership team treat staff development as a precious resource. They carefully analyze the school's budget and its activities to identify both the money and the time that the school can use for staff development. They also identify staff development that is required by other entities such as the central office of the school system or the state department of education. With this information as background, the leaders of the achieving middle school then use student performance data to identify the students' and teachers' greatest learmng needs. If, for example, the math performance of students is not what it should be, the school's leadership team engages mathematics teachers and the central office's math consultant in developing staff development that will most likely increase the teachers' effectiveness in raising student achievement. The school does not stop there, however. It also creates and implements a process for determining whether and how the teachers benefited from the staff development, and whether and with what effect they are adapting their instruction to use what they learned. This process of evaluation helps the school learn from the professional development experiences of its staff, and over time increases the school's understanding of what types of staff development are most effective. ! I I I i I Step Five: Engage Everyone in Discussions of Student Work Collectively engage teachers, administrators, site councils, and students'families in analyzing and discussing the quality of student -work. How does a school know whether students are achieving? How does it know that the rate at which they are achieving is satisfactory? Sadly, most schools are dependent on the results of standardized assessments. In one sense these schools have turned over accountability for monitoring student progress to either the state or the central office of their school system. The schools rely almost totally on assessment reports from the state or district to gauge the academic progress their students are making. _ Given the high-stakes nature of these assessments I suppose it is not surprising that schools are so dependent on them for information about student progress, but this is not healthy for schools or their students. These tests serve a purpose, but at best they are snapshots of what students know and can do\nthey do not provide schools with a sophisticated, comprehensive understanding of students' levels of performance or their academic growth. 4 : http\n//www.middleweb.com/HMcharlotte.html 7/27/99rdgc , 01 110 5' While the achieving middle school disaggregates and studies the results of standardized assessments to learn what to change about curriculum and instruction, it does not stop there. The achieving school also engages teachers and administrators, and as many representatives of students' families as possible, in systematically examining student work over time. This usually occurs in small groups, such as department or team meetings, but faculty meetings and special evening programs are also appropriate venues. At these meetings teachers bring samples of actual student work to analyze and discuss. -This works best in schools where teachers are committed to using rubrics that describe varying levels of the quality of student work, from excellent to poor, for a specific assignment. Rubrics can also help teachers engage students in understanding the quality of work the teachers are seeking. Some teachers involve their students in developing the rubric for a particular assignment while others collaborate with students to develop a generic rubric for all work students produce. In other words, rubrics can help students understand the teachers' expectations and the criteria teachers use to assign a grade to the work students submit. There are a number of different protocols for how a group of people might examine student work but - at one middle school it works like this\nOnce a week the social studies teachers meet after school for two hours to examine and discuss student work. A teacher brings to the group a selection of work students completed in response to a major assignment. The teacher begins the session by explaining the content standard for the assignment addressed. She goes on to explain why and how she developed the assignment\nin other words, how she intended the assignment to help students develop the knowledge and skills necessary to meet the specific content standard. The teacher then describes the rubric she developed to assess the quality of the students' work. Finally, the teacher discusses several pieces of student work which are illustrative of the range of students' performance on the assignment. At that point, the teacher's colleagues ask questions and provide feedback. They may praise the link between the specific content standard and file assignment. They may make suggestions for strengthening the assignment, or critique certain elements of the rubric. But this process is not a show-and-tell for the teacher to proudly show off the best work of her class. Instead, it is an opportunity for a group of professionals to think hard about and discuss the relationship between their instruction and the performance of their students. This cannot occur unless each teacher is willing to learn from his or her colleagues, and unless there is enough trust and security among the teachers that they can give and take constructive criticism. The objective of the collaborative examination of student work is to improve teacher practice so it V' I i will improve studen?performance.~This can be one of the most effective types of staff development, buTlike other potentially powerful investments in education it requires sustained conumtment and li 1 j effort. Examining student work is important because the bottom line in the achieving middle school is what students actually know and can do, not just how they perform on tests. In fact, the focus on student performance is a higher standard than focusing on test performance. None of us earn our livings by how we perform on tests, but all of us earn our livings by demonstrating every day what we know and can do. Student work is the window that enables us to understand what students actually know and can do, and how well they know and can do it. However, this process is only one component of the I http://www.middleweb.com/HMcharlotte.html 7/27/99Page 6 01 10 framework for increasing student achievement. That framework includes these elements: (a) there_ must be challenging md engaging curriculum that is standards-based\n(b) th^instruction of teachers must be rooted in their knowledge of the content they are teaching md then skillful use of pedagogy to engage students in learning that contentTfc) teachersjnust hsyelopTirgh-quanfy assi_g^nts for the specific Dumose of causing students to progress towards perfom^jl: stmdard\nmd (d) teactos mustcollaborativ^^d.consistently.analyzestudentwrkjodet^ineif^ete^ers instruction md assignments are producii^Jthe .quality of work students must demonstrate to perform at standard. If not then temhCTS must chmge their practice to achieve this result. It is only when all these pieces are in place, consistently md faithfully implemented, that student performance will increase significmtly. Step Six: Make High School Success a Primary Goal Focus the school on encouraging and preparing nearly all students in grades six, seven, and eight to enroll and succeed in high school courses leading to post-secondary education. statement that one hears often whenever there is a discussion about the purpose of There is a statement that one hears often whenever there is a aiscussion auoui j.c ux education: \"Well, you know, not everyone needs to go to college or should go to college. It is quite possible to make a good living md be happy without going to college.\" This is usually followed by . . ..... ii________u..- IC moVino mnrp mnnp an anecdote about a relative who did not go to college but has a good job and is making more money than another relative who did go to college. It is of course, true that there are some highly motivated, strong willed, energetic, and creative people with only a high school education but who are successful in spite of it. It is also true that in the next millennium there will be fewer and fewer jobs for such people. But even before we get to the year 2000, there is compelling data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics about the value of college education: *In 1996, college graduates earned nearly 75 percent more thm high ^hool graduates. * Each year of post-secondary education raises wages by about eight percent. * By ages 28 to 32 the real earnings growth of men with a high school education or below is about one percent annually while male college graduates have m annual real wage growth of five percent each year. * The likelihood of a worker experiencing a period of unemployment decreases as the worker's education level increases. Now I ask you, in light of these facts, why would a middle school not intentionally encourage_ai^ prepare nearly every sixth, seventh, md eighth grader to enroll md, sucked in high school \u0026lt;^21^ tn post-secondary eaucation? If middle schools really wmt the b^for their students, if they r'e^ly^ttFpre^ them for the twenty-first century, why are they not encoura^ng and prepmng nearly every middle school student to seek md obtain as much education as possible. I believe this what m achieving middle school must do. I want to point out that when I use the term \"post-secondary education\", I mem my level of education beyond high school, not just four years of college. \"Post-secondary should include '5 httD I //www .mi ddl ew eb. com/HMchsrlotte. html 7/27/991 Page 9 of 10 technical education, two-year colleges, or any structured educational opportunities that require a high school diploma and have other entrance criteria. The same type of post-secondary education is not appropriate for everyone, but it is both appropriate and necessary to encourage and prepare nearly all middle school students for some type of post-secondary education. This does not mean that the middle school has any business deciding or even suggesting a specific type of post-secondary education for a particular student. It certainly does not mean that the school should assign students to classes based on what the school believes or assumes about what class is best preparation for a specific type of post-secondary education for a particular student. This is not the role of the achieving middle school. Instead, the school educates all students about all the many different types of post-secondary education available to them. The school does not make judgments that some students are not smart enough or that their families do not have enough money for the students to pursue higher education. Rather, the school instills in all students the desire to seek additional education after high school. The achieving middle school seeds and nurtures students' interest in post-secondary education. It understands that student aspiration precedes student determination, and that in all matters the \"what\" must come before the \"how.\" I I i I But encouraging students to pursue higher education requires much more than handing out brochures, or pairing students with mentors, or even creating opportunities for students to spend time at postsecondary institutions. Students have to develop the self-confidence that with effort they can perform at higher levels. This begins with middle school teachers and administrators consistently communicating their belief that higher education is a desirable goal for students, and each day driving home their expectations that students will produce quality work in middle school. This, of course, presents a problem. Many middle school teachers and administrators do not believe that nearly all students can or should prepare for post-secondary education, and they do not expect them to produce high quality work in middle school. In these cases, the attitudes and behaviors of the educators communicate so powerfully that anything else they may do has little effect. Middle school students are very discerning about how much their teachers care about and expect of them, and how well teachers prepare and how hard they work to help students develop academically. Therefore, it is essential for middle school educators to get their attitudes and behaviors straight before they_set put to encourage and prepare nearly all middle school students to pursue post-secondary education. Tackling this issue has other profound consequences for schools. To honestly prepare students to take high school courses leading to post-secondary education, it will be necessary to eliminate low level V __________J __________ 11 Jin nlrallonoinCT biah rnntAnt PAlir^P^ th^At flTft  I courses and to ensure that nearly all students participate in challenging, high content courses that are aligned with the high school courses. I know what you are thinking: How is this possible when so _ many of your students come to middle school with poor literacy and math skills? Of course it is not possible if your middle schools are structured and operated as they do now. That is the point. No school can become an achieving middle school by merely tinkering here or tweaking there, making just a few changes at the margins and hoping for the best. If middle schools are to advance significantly the achievement of all students, the schools will have to restructure, retool, and reallocate. More teachers will have to invest more time and effort in developing mastery of the content they teach, and becoming more skillful in causing students to perform at standard. The curnculum will have to become more engaging and challenging. The school day, week, and perhaps even the school year will have to change to create more time for high quality staff development and much more time for student learning. Above all, attitudes will have to change. http://www.middleweb.com/HMcharlotte.html 7/27/991 Page 10 of 10 Educators have to believe that they can reform their schools fundamentally, and central office leaders to whom they are accountable have to believe it also. Unless teachers and principals believe that middle school reform is both necessary and possible, and unless they have both the permission and support of central office leaders, it will not be possible for middle schools to become achieving schools. Are You Really So Powerless? i 1 These, then, are the six steps to develop an achieving middle school. At best, they represent a fiamework, not a recipe. Because each middle school is different, each will have to take the six steps in its own way. This is not a process for the timid, and I encourage you to be courageous and bold. Though I know the challenge of these six steps is great, it is not as great as the challenges that will confiont your students if you do not take these steps. I During the next millennium they will face an increasingly complex and competitive world. Some of you may be tempted to shrug your shoulders and say, \"It does not make any difference what I do. Whatever I do, some of my students will succeed, some will not.\" Yes, that is the human condition, but are you really so powerless that you cannot change lives? Are you really saying that you cannot make a significant difference in how your students prepare for the future? I do not believe that, and I hope you do not. But what is more important is what your students believe. Each day they take a leap of faith. They come to school believing that you have their best interests at heart and that no matter what, you will help them prepare for the future. I 1 I Your students almost never tell you that. Quite often some of them act as though they believe just the opposite, throwing your best efforts back into your face. But the truth is that even these students believe in you and are counting on you. I will bet there are some people in this audience who know that is true because once, many years ago, they were such students. In spite of their behavior or their apparent lack of motivation, some teacher convinced them that they could achieve. So do not ever believe that you and your schools cannot make a profound difference in the lives of all your students. The challenge is to reform your schools and your teaching so that all students, not just some students, achieve at significantly higher levels. This is why you must make middle schools work well, and move on to make them achieving middle schools. As it says in the scriptures^.\"those who are well do not need a physician\" (Luke 5:31). Thank you. Back to the \"Hayes Mizell Reader'2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 March 2, 1999 TO\nMiddle School Principals FROM: SUBJECT\nDr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Student Achievement and the Middle School Plan The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) has three excellent articles opi their web page under the topic, Middle Grades Education Initiative. The first of these three is attached, Educations Weak Link\nStudent Performance in the Middle Grades. Note on page 5 the passage I have marked. The new awareness of the weak level of academic achievement at the middle school level is a heads-up for us as we plan our implementation of the middle school concept. We can avoid the mistakes made in earlier implementations. I Please see also on page 9 the results of state testing programs. Also, youll want to note at the bottom of that page the characteristics of a high performing school  a very similar list to the one I gave you at the principals meeting. These ideas are again reinforced on page 13 in the list of differences between high and low performing schools. In LRSD we want to be high performing. Attachments I BAL/rcm I I ( I I Middle Grades Initiative 2/28/99 12:40 AM Middle Grades Education Initiative Intemation^, national and regional reports paint a picture of an American educational system in which childhood programs, begin lagging behind in the middle grades and finish high school near the back of the pack. uuuicgiaucs The Southern Regional Education Board, using a grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation achievement in the middle grades. Through a series of four reports, the SREB s lyhddle Grades Education Initiative is focusing on problem areas in the regions middle grades the w^ link in education. In the reports are suggestions for how to improve the middle grades and student performance at that level and beyond.  1 suggestions for how to improve the middle grades and The following are the first three reports in that series. Educations Weak Link: Student Performance in the Middle Grades Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades: Readiness for Success Improving Teaching in the Middle Grades: Higher Standards for Students Arent Enough [ i Comments For additional information, please contact Sondra Cooney at (404) 875-9211, Ext. Home . About SREB Education Data Educational Policy Legisiativ Action Publications c Search SREB 1 http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddleGrades/iniddlegrades.html Page 1 of 1 ! 1 JEducation's Weak Link: Student Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM SREB Educations Weak Link [Student Performance in the Middle Grades ^o^thern Regional Education Boards Middle Grades Education Initiative This ^s the first in a series of reports funded by a grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foun^nrt nr, The middle grades  grades five through eight  are the weak link in Amoi-inon eignm graaers who twk the NAEP mathematics examination in 1996 scored below the h^c level _ indicting they lack the fundamental skills most Americans would agree high school. are needed to be successful in Tte Nalional Assessment stafsltcs for the SREB states patnt an even more disturbing picture. Consider  Almost 50 percent of eighth-graders are below the basic level  Even in thehiehest-np.rfnrmino -n. MbAw UA/Iun mv Uiaoiv level 111 Hiath the highest-performing SREB stotes (Maryland, Texas and Virginia) more than 40 percent of eighth-graders are below the basic level Virginia), more than 40 * nearly twothiris of eighth-graders are below the basic level. (Figure 1) A ^^tional Pattern of Underachievement Eighth-grade performance indicators from the National Assessment of ^u^tional ProBi^ .dkUwwlllO WIJILJ,  Can do arithmetic but do not understand and OMI V wj A to  memonze facte and answer specific science questions but cannot annlv the ^owledge nor understand the reasoning behind scientific mncontc- reasoning behind scientific concepts- and  Have only some of the reading skills necessary to be successful in grade-level work. To be literate does not mean that we all must be physicists, astronomers mathematicians erarv cnties Tf Hope mpan tKot _u i___ui. A j , , inainemaucians I * J ----------**** xAAMoi. daiionoine literary critics. It does mean that we should be able to read and understand 1 --------------- aiiu uiiucrsta business or science and make good and accurate decisions about heal th an article about or our daily lives. and economic issues in Figure 1 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Scoring Below Mathematics Level Basic http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/weaklink hfEducation's Weak Link\nStudent Performance in the Middle Grades zmmuw 2/28/99 12:41 AM iviii mmw S: SiUMW Mi \"T ?! SS*1^  S!\nX.'KW \u0026lt;\u0026gt;K *\u0026gt; fWW  SbS-s.\n, 4( iW ' li \u0026gt;-  WlwSuMMii Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Scoring at the Proficient or Above on Mathematics Level chart2.gif (100841 bytes) NAEP J996 Mathematics: /depart Card/or the Nation and the States, National Center for Education Statistics * Fourteen of e 15 SREB sutes participated in the 1996 NAEP\nOklahoma did not participate. ^\"8 science: Too many students do not have the basic skills. Students have not a^uired the solid foundation of knowledge and skills in core academic areas .J V 11  .... --------------------WAW cjtwAAj Hi WIV aUlUClIIIL flicks necessaiy to do challengmg work in high school or to go on to further education in colleges and umversities. In 13 of 14 SI^B states with National Assessment data, more students score below the basic level in mathematics in eighth grade than in fourth grade. The achievement gap is not only at the basic level. There are too few students in the SREB region who score at the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Fewer than 25 percent of eighth-grade students in all SREB states score at the proficient level in mathematics  level that may signal that students are ready to do challenging work in high school. (Figure 1) Figure 2 Percentages of Eighth-Grade Students at Mathematics Performance Levels on the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress http://www.sreb.org/Prograins/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/weaklink.htm Page 2 of 11 I i I r 4^  I : 1 J  R w s \u0026amp; r i ****** '**** i a u w K t u 1 a1 Education's Weak Link: Student Perfonnance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM ! 1 I i I TOK White , SREB *\nNation Black SREB Nation Hispanic SREB Nation Total Percent of Students 59% 68 24 15 14 13 Advanced 3% 5 .1 .1 .7 .9 perfonnance levels Proficient and above Basic and above 1 Below Basic W 30'' 73 24 27 39 37 27' 76 73 61 63 3 4 8 8 j i Shading - StatisticaUy significant differences between SREB and nation 1 Basic and above includes proficient and advanced percentages Fourteen of the 15 SREB states participated in the 1996 NAEP\nOklahoma did I not participate. Assessment suggests tSZy E *\u0026gt; fr' National I  Eighth-graders in SREB states who and science have lower NAEP nationwide. i receive B or C grades in mathematics scores than students with similar grades standards for middle graders than the rest of the nation what does this maAemati^ for^rS?And mean for course work in of low academic standards in the in the I Finally, how does the poor performance of our middle grades affect the - ernnnmiAc that -------------. i aiicvi me econoniies that depend on an educated work force to economies of SREB states ramate? If eighth-graders are not prepared to rva n Kl A ... i . be successful in high school the ?rpr rpoinn unit  *8nt-graders are not prepared tc for business, indX SucLoT^  qualified gr^uates Where are the student performance gaps? There is a tendency to blame I i I I i not account for the range of differences in nation as a whole. SREB states have more lower-income families. The gap between NAEP scores for a f who are more often from when comp^ed with white students is sirnil^Ld unaaeptoW^gJ^fortoh^Sra'' d the nation. (Figure 2) a^cpuiuiy large, tor both the SREB region and I i ) 5 * \"\"\"\"\"'e families in the lower achievement SREB region have scores thMjowincome students across the nation. nr imhe, I, J J *  with parents who graduated .?r Z? Sh =hool also hive lower - ------...J naiionwidc. . - _ J .t  ** awTT-iiivi  Added to this fact: In the SREB states, from high school . - - - scores than students from similar families Seto mS *e toyf oTgiS?\" 'ent: where student live and  Both male and female students in rural areas and small towns http://www.sreb.org/Prograins/MiddleGrades/We score nklinlrEducation's Weak Link: Student Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM significantly below students in rural areas nationwide. In fact, eighth-graders in rural areas of the SREB region score about the same as their counterparts in inner cities. Nationally, rural students score higher than those in the central cities. (Figure 3)  Female students  more than half the school-age population in SREB states  perform at a lower level in mathematics and science than other female students across the country and consistently below male SREB students. (Figure 4)  The largest achievement gap among females occurs between girls who live in rural areas of the SREB states and girls elsewhere in the nation who live in rural areas. Figure 3 Percentages of Eighth-Grade Students at Mathematics Performance Levels on the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress by Location Central City SREB Nation Percent of students who scored at performance levels Total Percent of Students 33% 29 Urban FringelLarge Town SREB Nation Rural/Small Town SREB Nation 35 38 32 33 Advanced Proficient and above Basic and above 1 Below Basic 2% 3 17% 16 50% 48 50% 53 21 26 60 64 40 36 w 15 Ml 69 * 3 5 13  Shading  Statistically significant differences between SREB and nation 1 Basic and above includes proficient and advanced percentages * Fourteen of the 15 SREB states participated in the 1996 NAEP\nOklahoma did not participate. Figure 4 Average Mathematics Performance Score by Content Areas on 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress by Gender Gender Number of sense, properties, operations Measurement Geometry Male SREB Nation Female SREB Nation 269 272 269 273 267 269 Data analysis, statistics, probability Algebra 265 269 268 272 272 272 * * Shading  Statistically significant differences between SREB and nation Fourteen of the 15 SREB states participated in the 1996 NAEP\nOklahoma did not participate. http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddIeGrades/Weaklink/weakIlnk.htm Page 4 of 11 Education's Weak Link: Student Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM 'I' twofold?Hrto determine w^ perform more poorly when compared with similar students nationwide\nand (2) to develop practices that help all students - those in cities and rural areas, girls and boys - raise their academic achievement. i j i i ( I Why do the gaps exist? HiSija for Jem^e students and rural students in SREB stotes? Are expectotions Hum  rhigher grades than females nationwide, they score sigmficantly below other girls in the nation on the National Assessment. yet ^5^ standards different in mral ar^? Eighth-grade girls in rural areas of the wSSSw^SmSe Class they do fewer hands-on tasks involving concepts associated preparation forchallenoino ci-irsnvo rvm.rm, i for challenging science courses in high school.  schools set clear, challenging standards for what eighth-graders should know before they enter high school? Are there also problems with what J taught? Do parents know what the standards and exoectotions are for the WOTkV^ children struggle with more difSt and challenging 1 content is being taught  k. In virtually every PraS'^s point to weaknesses in middle Btades acmevernent. In Kentucky, for example, acommitteeis trying to determine whv middle school egging behind elementary and high school i inX evSSSXjf yf ? these questions._Part of the answer might be found 7.^ nauonwide phenoSj^onlhit^gSo deciaBT fhedata cited here, die explanation for the middle grades achievement to be even more comniev 7  **vvucutgap in the SREB stetes appears to be even more complex - rooted, perhaps, in a history of lower standards and expectotions. Standards and Expectations What should smdents know and be able to do to be successful in high school and hevond'/ Do expec. as much from our siudenls us other states do? luterrmtiouufnS Ste^^S XS '\u0026lt; expectations for ef^th-grade we What do we mean by high standards and expectations? ! We know that American students are comparisons of achievempnt v 7 77 ' I^rforming at the highest levels on international comparisons ot achievement. Yet education leaders in only two of the 15 SRFR have^mnared 7t. h  oJ the 15 SREB stotes report that they mathemaucs and science with international benchmarks for k pertormance. What does that say about mathematics standards and expectations in stotes where students score significantly below the national average? expectations in stotes Algebra IS often described as the gatekeeper for advanced mathematics 11 TiZ  'ic gaicKeeper lor aavanced mathematics and for entrance into college. About 25 percent of students in the SREB states take algebra by the end of the natinnQl __j___r____ OI me c-oiuucuu, lu uic orvnn siaies laxe algebra by the end of the eiehth grade _ the same as the national average. Yet eighth-graders in more than half of the SREB stotes^score below the national average on the algebra part of the NAEP assessment. (Figure 5) i i AnoAer 35 percent of eighth-graders say they will take algebra in ninth grade leaving almost 40 percent who do not plan to begin a higher mathematics sequence - Algebra I, GeometJ and Algebra http://www.sreb.org/Prograins/MiddIeGrades/Weaklink/weaklink.litmEducation's Weak Link: Student Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM II in high school. All SREB states require three years of mathematics for high school graduation and admission to postsecondary education, but the requirement can be met by a variety of mathematics courses. Currently, Algebra I is the highest level of mathematics required of all students. However, about one-third of SREB states have raised that requirement to include both algebra and geometry for future graduating classes. More entry-level jobs require technical, mathematical knowledge. Yet we still have a third of students in SREB states who reported that, if given the option, they would not take mathematics at all in high school. J Eighth-Graders: A World View  American eighth-graders have improved their performance in aritlunetic, while the rest of the world has moved on to problem-solving, algebra and geometry.  Basic mathematics for American eighth-graders is the same as seventh-grade mathematics for most of the world.  Most American eighth-graders (86 percent) think that they are doing well in mathematics, while more than half of Japanese and Korean students (who are doing well) think they should do better. j Mathematics Achievement in the Middle School Years: lEAs Third International Mathematics and Science Studv 1996. Splintered Vision: An Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathematics Education. 1997. Figure 5 SREB State* Performance in Eighth-Grade Mathematics on 1996 National Assessment of Education Progress (\"  \" = Below National Average,\"  = Same as National Average,\"  \" = Above National Average) Content Topics Number Sense, properties, operations Measurement Geometry Data Analysis, statistics, probability Algebra AL AR FL GA KY LA MD MS NC SC TN TX VA WV 4* 4* 4* csD 4* ra~i 4* caj 4* 4* r=ri 4* 4* 4^ 4* 4* 4* 4* r=n 4* r=n 4* 4* 4* 4* 4* 4* mi 4* mi 4* mi 4* 4* caa 4* csjj 4* caj 4* r^ 4* 4* 4' 4* 4* 4* ran 4* i~=n 4* cm cm 4* 4* r=n psn 4* 4* rsn r:zn 4/ 4* cm cm 4* 4* If two out of five students fail to see the importance of mathematics to high school and career success, what should we do in the middle grades to motivate students to succeed in mathematics'/ What standards do we expect middle grades students to meet in mathematics and the other core subjectsand do those standards reflect the tougher high school graduation requirements most SREB states have now implemented? Parent support and school practices Deciding what we expect students to know and do is the first step in shrinking the achievement gap in the middle grades. Many states in the nation and the SREB region are developing or refining http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/weaklink.htm Page 6 of 11.1 Education's Weak Link\nStudent Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM academic stand^ds and expectations for students in all grades. But after standards are developed and PYTVPfahnnc HAfi-nAH mkot F\\/-x ____ _ i _ * expectations defined, what next? Do students, teachers and parents know what the standards ^e and what perfonnance is expected? The next all-important step is to make sure that all parts of the education system are organized to achieve the standards. ! i 1 Wh^ do the National Assessment data tell us about how well schools in the SREB states communicate with students and parents about standards and expectations?  Fewer schools in SREB states, especially in rural areas and small towns, report positive parental support.  Eighth grade students in schools with positive parent support for student achievement in SREB states score the same as eighth graders nationwide.  Fewer schools in SREB states report that parents are involved in classroom activities, parent conlerences and curriculum matters.  Students in schools with parents involved in classroom activities, parent conferences and cumculum matters in SREB states score the same as eighth graders across the nation. i Are schwls m SREB states less welcoming to parents, less trusting, or less open about what is expected of students? The data suggest that schools with middle grades should find ways to involve parents in setting academic standards and building parent support for the standards. A first step is to mTTiTminir'aM ctii/iAnto ______________c ~ ^cggmuni^tejos^nts and parents alike a clear picture of the standards for completing eighth grade and wRaris^Scceptable^rtormance:----------------- i ! What does the Third International Mathematics and Science Study data tell us about how we organize content and develop activities within the curriculum? 10-15 topics each year in mathematics and study them in grater depth until they are mastered. In America, middle grade students cover or review as many as 35-40 topics a year-often the same 35-40 topics they have covered for several }  In fact, while most countries introduce six or seven new topics in algebra and geometry during tnp minnlA oroHdc A -------- k J -------  141 tugvwia aiiu g\u0026amp;uiu\u0026amp;u y uuiixj thTs^riod ^\"^etican students can count on studying only one new topic during 75 percent of eighth graders in SREB states report doing problems from a textbook every da y Thes e studente do not perform as well as students nationwide who report daily textbook use Why the different result? How do teachers decide what to teach f rom the textbook, what to emphasize and how much time to devote to different topics? Is the textbook the only curriculum in too many schools? Without a set of standards and indicators of acceptable performance, curricular results may vary sigmiicantly from classroom to classroom and school to school. use. I I t i ! i 1 Interestingly, eighth grade students in the SREB sutes and across the nation perform better in scientx than in matiiematics on international comparisons. Studies show that the U.S. curriculum is more focused in science than in mathematics, giving students more time and opportunity to master concepts and study a topic in more depth. Whal do we know about classroom practices? Information gathered by the National Assessment of Educational Progress from teachers and students tells us that in comparison to the nation, the typical eighth grader in SREB states:  is assigned less group or partner work in mathematics\n)  is assigned less project work in mathematics\nj  writes less about how to solve problems in mathematics\n/  believes mathematics is mostly about memorizing facts\n '  deigns and carries out fewer scientific investigations\n )  gives fewer oral reports in science\nand  y http://www.sreb.org/Progranis/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/weaklink.htm P#I\u0026lt;T*\u0026gt; *1 1 1- lu tuc Aviiuuie orades  has fewer discussions about material they have read. 2/28/99 12:41 AM leSS S Wyi\"? what they have scores for eighth graders in SREB states when compared to eighth grata S?n\"  results in lower .X us about luow scboots in SHEB states assess student progress?  Almost two/thirds of students in SREB states their teachers, and these students are tested at least weekly in mathematics by score about 30 points lower on the National Assessment of Kucadonal Progress dian students who are tested once or twice a month'  iSSSr frequent testing does not lead to better It may be at students in classrooms that emphasize testing concentrate on learning bits of information that are not remembered or developed into a logical understandin p nf matt^p k science. Frequent testing coupled with fewer o^rtuniti^ to apply leanung fpS ' ichievement in c assrnnms appears student achievement in classrooms. to produce lower How Do States Evaluate Student Performance? performance. progress on state standards for knowledge and or report statewide data on science achievement at grSe ei^t a^d ^REB states one state looks at science in grade seven. However, comparisons are not always aSble fron^ZT NAFPkwS\"tttllotatl goals. i^chveVT dompamtive data for these data are not linked to individual schools and districts. and assessments. The the SREB region, but Several SR^ states have launched studies to examine standards and exoectations in mathpm.tinc id science. For instance, Georgia has been concerned nivM.f .k., ^^P^^^^tions in mathematics standee Perfoance o[juniors and seniors on and the SAT. To try and understand the causes of lagging SAT the SAT given in seventh through tenth grades were conclusions. scores, results from preliminary versions of analyzed. Georgia reached the following 8ive-hc^rceiofamherwh=n,,wL'SSm*S  Students do not know or understand geometric relationships. These shortcomings can be traced, in significant part to weakneccec in Aa mJHHu carmotbe The evidence of lagging achievement in the middle grades in SREB states is nvprwhAim- pervades the entire educational system. (Figure 6) To chance what^P I? ! overwhe imng and inabiliy in our schools and cl Jrooms, difcgSvXXSbk d achievemenl io examine data and consider what steps need Io be aken toSeme cow Middle Grades: The Weak Link http://www.sreb.org/Progranis/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/weaklink.htin Page 8 of 11Education's Weak Link: Student Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM Results from State Testing Programs I Elementary In Kentucky over the last five years, statewide reading scores have risen 31 points and statewide mathematics scores have risen 22 points in the elementary grades. The overall accountability index rose 13 points Middle Grades High School In reading, scores rose only 11 By twelfth grade reading points over the last five years,  - much less than the growth rate rose 34 points, a dramatic scores expected by the state in the middle grades. Mathematics improvement, and mathematics scores improved by 28 points ,,  over the five-year period. The stores improved by 31 points, overall accountability index rose The overall accountability index by 15 points improved by 9 points, the lowest gain of the three grade groups J I f i During the 1994-95 school year, South Carolina's fifth graders scored about the same as a national sample in mathematics. Twenty-five percent were in the lowest quarter of students and 28 percent scored in the upper quarter. kt the end of the third grade, Oklahoma students scored as well as 60 percent of students on a nationally-normed test in reading, 62 percent in mathematics and 69 percent in science. By the end of fifth grade no fewer than 76 percent of students passes all state-developed curriculum tests. When these fifth graders were For students moving from ninth to eleventh grade during the tested as seventh graders in period, the percentage students in the lowest quarter of students scoring in the had grown to 30 percent and thehighest quarter grew and the percentage in the upper quarter   ' slipped to 26 percent. percentage in the lowest quarter decreased. At the end of seventh grad reading, 58 percent in mathematics, and 55 percent in science. By the end of eighth grade, the percent-age of students who passed the state's curriculum tests was lower in every area. The degree in the percentages of grade except for reading where the percentage improved from eighth grade. Comparing a High-Performing and Low-Performing School school with a school in which students wun a scnooi in which students are not performing atantKceotahiehZi nfn'- snapshots of two such schools with a similar student ' majority of students from low-income families. of racial/ethmc groups and a are ! ! High-Performing As you enter the door of l\u0026amp;KrfSJ^hiimirScr^^ : Bright and attractive displays of student work a num ot activity greets your aurdcuve aispiays of student work are posted in the hallwavs'andin ^o^se as you make your way to the office. S^dents gSl ^^ou need help. The principal shares the standards for student leamine in the schnni thatj i j  c immumty and parent advice. She sueeests that vnu inX developed with : community and parent advice. She suggests that you look for the http://www.sreb.Org/Progranis/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/w, ' content standards and samples 'ooVIimV- La  rtWinrtw,wift\u0026lt;iiwSEducation's WeaK EinK: stuaent rertormance in tne Mioaie urades ix:*i Ajvi\nof exemplary work to be achieved by students that are displayed in each and every classroom. She selects a student buddy for you to follow so that you get a flavor of what going to this school is like. Jordan, your eighth grade student buddy, is bouncing in his seat as the combined mathematics and science period begins. There are two teachers and a parent volunteer to work i with 60 students during this 90 minute block of time. The students are sitting at tables that i accommodate six students.\nMs. Jones begins the period with a brief review of the previous days work on distance, : speed and force and then asks, How many of you have seen a water wheel? Very few students\nraise their hands, so she begins to elicit what students know about water wheels from pictures, : movies and stories. Students are directed to work in pairs and to identify the major characteristics of water wheels. After several minutes, students share their ideas with the whole class. i Next, each student is challenged to design an effective and efficient water wheel from the ' materials on the table. Students must sketch their design and estimate its speed and capability of lifting certain materials. After completing their sketch, they s hare their design with a partner and\ndevelop one best design from the two. The exercise is monitored by both teachers who roam the room asking questions, observing discussions and checking designs. As the noise level subsides ' and the pairs begin to complete the activity, Mr. Smith signals for attention and asks for volunteers to share how they began and completed the given task. Approximately 30 minutes\nhave gone by quickly. Ms. Jones sets the boundaries for the next part of the days task. She instructs each table (of : three pairs) to come up with one best design for a water wheel, sketch it, write why they chose it, and estimate its speed and power capability. After completing those tasks, each table must get : a teachers initial on the plan and estimate and then begin constructing and testing their water\nwheel. Ms. Jones and Mr. Smith remind the students to record the results of their water wheel\ntests in their notebooks and write their observations and summary statements after completing the tests. The room begins buzzing with ideas, discoveries and disagreements. The teachers question the groups about their designs as they circulate through the room. The parent volunteer fill s pails of water and provides an empty and a filled bucket for each table. As the period draws to a close, Ms. Jones asks for volunteers to share the results of their : experiment and any summary statements they have developed. Students are eager to share their ' results, and they speculate freely on why some designs worked and others did not. As students dismantle their designs, Mr. Smith assigns the homework for the evening. Each student is to write how they would change the group designed water wheel to make it faster and more powerful if they were to do the task again.\nDuring the teachers planning period, Ms. Jones and Mr. Smith explain that the activities\nobserved were part of the instruction designed to help students achieve the following science standards:  Students will plan and implement investigative procedures.  Students will collect data, organize, analyze, evaluate, infer and predict trends.  Students will recognize how to apply formulas and equations.  Students will identify physical properties of various materials. The observed task required students to learn about circumferences, diameters and radii and their relationship to each other as well as to rate and distance. The teachers wanted students to think about these concepts using the scientific process of hypothesizing, experimenting and  evaluating. The task also supported content and skills being used by other members of the : teaching team in an English and social studies unit on colonial America. The lesson observed was but one of several the team has planned to investigate energy and the environment. The teachers shared a checklist they used to evaluate students work during the class period. This checklist was shared with students in advance so evervone knew what was exnected. Each http://www.sreb.org/Prograins/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/weakIink.htm Page 10 of 113 Education s Weak Link: Student Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM student was checked on their imUal design and estimates and upon the groups final design and justification of that design. Each student was required to recordthe resSts o^f the water Xel expenments in a latoratory notebook and to develop a summatwe statemen?bSn die experiment that explained the relationships of circumference, radius, speed and power. Ms. Jones and Nfr. Smith also discussed problems students had with the task and strengths they noted dunng the period. They explain that later, when they have time to reflect more fSly they will examine the students work closely and ask pointed quest! ons of themselves about the quality of their lesson plan and how it could be improved. ncmscives aooui me Mr. Smith will begin the next days period with a review of formulas that help calculate circumference Md energy expended. His objectives are to help students undersold why the formulas work based on thmr pnvripnpA j , uciauuiu wiiy me other applications of the relationships discovered through the water wheel task i A visit to a low performing school reveals believe works for students. an equally dedicated principal and faculty who are trying to do what they t i ! i f i I ( i I ? i j I ! 0 I i ? ^iip-//^ssw.srcb.or^rograms/MiddleGradesrWeakniii./we!ikliBk.btm D.J vuucm rcnurmance in me iviiauie Grades 2/28/99 12:41 A 0 =11 il 1 J  Ip a: Low-P^rf o r m i n g PerforminiMiddie School, a bkmkeTof'quTc  reminded by large signs that you must report to the office or be \u0026gt;khr'y, y?r the principals office, the secretary is busy dealing with students. Student fill the office, and each has a piece of paper that requires attention. After cleanng out some of the crowd the secretary buzzes the principal to let him know you have pnncipal emerges from his office, welcomes you, and suggests that you come into his office for a briefing before you visit classrooms. no The principal provides a gener^ description of the community, staff and students that is clear and knowledg^ble. He explains, because so many of our students have little structure in their lives outside of school, we believe that we must provide structure so that they have an opportunity to learn what they need to know. There is research supporting the effectiveness of structured whole class instructionespecially for low-achieving students. We strongly believe tnatisngnt.  After the briefing the principal walks with you to the science classroom, the first of four , cl^srooms you will visit He introduces you to the teacher and requests that you return to the rnU ralYif before you visit the next classroom. The teacher is completing a roll call of the class. He is about to begin a demonstration of how to construct a pulley one of Dunng the demonstration, some of the students have their heads down h\" *,S^ appears to be mathematics homework. As the questions. No one raises a hand. He then instructs : the students to open their books to chapter 8. He moves to his desk to retrieve the textbook and asks the student sitting at the back of the first row to begin readme aloud from r.hant- 8 KftP^n : minutes have gone by. to begin reading aloud from chapter 8. Fifteen classroom, and there are commercial posters on the walls illustrating the six simple machines. Classroom rules related to clothing, iSavior and wrk are^so j^ted pe students continue to read from the chapter, a paragraph at a time. When a student hesitates on a word, the teacher quickly provides the correct pronunciation. As a student completes a paragraph, the teacher asks, What is that paragraph telling us? If no one wlunteers, he selects a student to Mswer. As the chapter is completed, he tells the students to h!o* quesuons at the end of the chapter. Complete these questions and hand them in at the beginmng of the class period tomorrow. , Smdents begin to search for paper and pencils\nsome do not have either and must admit that , to the tether or find someone to gve them paper and a pencil. The class is finally working on 50 minute class period rings. Students^surge toward the hall, and the noise level nses as they chatter and move toward other classrooms The tocher and princij^ explain later that you have observed a general science class. In this\ncl^s students will ^mplete the textbook and do physical science^fOT the more advanced students) or consumer science, a course that concentrates ci health, nutrition and science project and a research paper by the i every^y s^nce for the less able student The science department examined student data to find Xw / to emphasize both process ^d  content. To that end, they begin most class penods with a teacher demonstration of an : experiment or concept, and students spend one day each week in a laboratory replicating an expenmentand recording it in lab books.  In ^ih of these schools and in the classrooms observed, teachers were planning and working to improve student achievement. One classroom emphasized student work, and the other classroom achievement. ernpr^neu siu^ni worK. and the other classroom was centered on the teacher's work. Their tchoob and teachers go about their business makes a difference in student Some differences between high and low performing schools http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddleGrades/Weaklink/weaklink.htin Page 12 of 11 3 r i?  H 1 a I\n? i 1 I aEducation's Weak Link\nStudent Performance in the Middle Grades 2/28/99 12:41 AM as Students in high performing schools are expected to do more, and high-performing schools provide more challenging curriculum. Successful schools emphasize higher level academics and the intellectual development of students in the middle grades... opposed to schools that concentrate most of their energy on social development and are satisfied with achievement on low-level skills. High-performing schools and districts align all the parts of the educational systemcurriculum, instruction, assessment and student supportand all the participantsthe community, school boards, administrators, teachers, students and parentsto achieve challenging standards. Expectations are clearly defined and widely supported. In high-performing schools, most parents and students have a clear vision and understanding of challenging standards for achievement by eighth grade. Schools, districts and states establish clear benchmarks for entrance into ninth grade and provide more time and more help for those students who have not mastered challenging content. Parents work with middle grades educators to define and achieve the standards in a challenging middle grades curriculum. Teachers in high-performing schools are prepared to teach challenging content In mathematics, science and reading and to teach young adolescents. Administrators oversee a system designed to emphasize plarming, collaboration and development of quality learning experiences by staff and faculty. Teachers and administrators believe that they can support the unique developmental needs of adolescents and offer a challenging learning experience. School boards and school and community leaders are ready to develop new policies to create a different system that ensures high performance for all students. These differences are conditions that legislators, state educational leaders, local educational leaders and middle grades educators, parents and community leaders need to consider as they work to help all schools and students become successful. Looking Ahead Three more reports will examine the current condition of middle grades education in the 15 states that comprise the region served by the Southern Regional Education Board. Observations in i schools and classrooms across the region will provide examples of current practice in the middle grades. The reports will incorporate data from the school visits to examine standards and expectations, teacher preparation and professional development and the best practices of schools whose students are achieving at high levels. I ! I i I i t- http://www.sreb.org/Progranis/MiddIeGrades/Weaklink/weaklink.htm Page 13 of 11 I i3 L. I I i i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 i March 2, 1999 I 1 i j i t I TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Middle School Principals Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Associate Superintendent for Instruction SREB: Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades The attached second article from SREB is very important. Exit Standards for Middle School See the bottom of page 1 through the top of page 3 for a list of indicators that grade 8 students are ready academically for high school. These are exit outcomes for middle schools - for all students, not just the ones at the Pre-AP level. The percent of your grade 8 students who achieve these standards is a good measure of your schools quality. Then youll see at the top of page 4 a list of some of the structural changes recommended in our own middle school plan. Now we know the reasons for teams, advisors, and block schedules. They are of no importance out of the context of improved academic achievement. There are some profound and, yes, sometimes upsetting, information in this article, but we have to know what works and what doesnt. The discussion on page 12 about classroom practices is excellent and should guide us all as we plan for improved instruction. Your faculty should spend a lot of time answering the questions on pp. 12-13 and then reflecting on the consequences of their answers. We are lucky in LRSD. We are reinventing alLour middle schools. The trick will be, however, in preparing \"every student for rigorous work in high schools.\" Attachments BAL/rcm f rxaiaiug vuiv Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades: , Readiness for Success In the first of a series of reports on middle grades education, the middle grades were characterized as the \"weak link\" in the educational system. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress were used to support the conclusion that SREB states should raise standards and expectations for student performance in the middle grades. This report will suggest ways that schools and classrooms in SREB states can use standards to improve achievement. Recent international, national and regional reports paint a picture of an American educational system in which students get a jump-start through early childhood programs, begin lagging behind in the middle grades and finish high school near the back of the pack. Almost 50 percent of eighth- graders in SREB states are below the basic (partial mastery) level in math, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Students in rural, small-town locations score significantly below students in rural areas nationwide. How can we raise our studentsachievement ahd close this gap? States and districts have set content standards and goals for learning at specific grades in an effort to define what must be achieved to be ready for success. But the standards and goals often are not clear and concise and are not easily understood by parents and students. Schools and teachers have not taken the next step: converting middle grades standards into clear examples of quality work that indicate students' readiness for challenging work in high school. The examples in Figure 1, gathered by the SREB from teachers, administrators, parents and students, illustrate what students might be expected to know and to do when they complete eighth grade. In simple, straightforward language, they describe achievement goals that too few students can meet today. Have your school districts, high schools and middle schools discussed and identified what readiness for challenging work in high school means for students completing eighth grade? Are middle grades students in your community ready for challenging work in high school? How do you know? On Expectations \"There is something very important we are not sharing with our students: Not everything is going to be pizza\nsome things will be spinach. Students need to know how to determine what is important and get through it.\" A Tennessee educator \u0026gt;Teachers, parents and students often do not have clear examples of what quality work is or how to reach high standards. Without clear expectations for performance, they cannot judge the quality of assignments or real academic progress. And the expectations must be set at a level high enough to ensure that any student meeting them is ready to do challenging work in high school and then be prepared to learn after high school, either in postsecondary education or on the job. Once standards are in place and accompanied by examples of quality work, schools must be asked, \"What are you doing to help all students perform at the highest achievement levels and be ready for success in high school?\" HI Figure 1 Readiness for High School Reading Indicators  completed pre-algebra or Algebra I with proficiency score Current Performance  In SREB states 25 percent of eighth-grade students complete an Questions to Ask  Have changes been made in mathematics instruction to ensure http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddleGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htinl Page 1 of 12Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades\nReadiness for Success 2/28/99 12:42 AM on an end-ol-course test  apply appropriate mathematic^ strategies to solve multistep problems algebra course and 34 percent complete pre-algebra. that all tilth-grade students will complete Algebra I orpre-^gebra by eighth grade? Are teachers asking all students to solve a variety of real-world and complex mathematical problems?  read-widely - a standard of 30 books over the course of a year - on an eighth-grade level.  Thirty-five percent of SREB eighth-grades report that they read five or fewer pages daily, compared with 25 percent of eighth-graders nationally.  At least 70 percent of students nationally are below the Nation^ Assessment proficient level in reading - a level indicating masteiy of challenging work and readiness for the next level of schooling.  Do all teachers know how to engage students in reading complex material? for example, do science teachers help students learn how to read scientific texts and materials?  find, organize and present information in writing as a response to a problem or question\u0026gt;  Forty-six percent of SREB eighth-graders report that they never have done a written report in science and 30 percent of math and science teachers say that they never ask students to write a report.  Are students asked to produce frequent, short-term writing responses in all classes? Are all students expected to do intensive, in-depth research and writing?  design, conduct, analyze and report on a science investigation  Forty percent of teachers in SREB states report that they never ask students to do an extended report on a science project, and two-thirds of students say they never have design^ and carried out their own science investigation  Are students expected to learn and use laboratory and research procedure,s in science? Are students required to develop and complete at least three science investigations each year? I f I  present an oral report that is interesting and logically developed with scientific accuracy  Sixty-one percent of SREB eighth-graders never have given an oral report in science, and 56 percent of teachers report they never ask students to give oral reports in science.  Are students required to present and defend ideas through oral presentations developed for different audiences? http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddIeGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.html Pape 2 of 12 Raising the Bar in the Middle uraaes: Keaainess lor success M.1V1  demonstrate writing competence  Nationally, NAEP trend data show that in 1996 fewer 13 year-olds (66 percent) could write clear, focused responses to different writing task than in 1984 (72 percent).  Are students asked to create, critique and summarize literary works? Are they required to use various writing strategies, such as comparison and cause-and-effect? What are the consequences of not \"being ready\"? Data from about 20,000 High Schools That Work students underscore the importance of being ready to do challenging work in high school. Ninth-graders in English/language arts courses described as basic or remedial have a 20 percent chance of attaining the HSTW proficiency goal for reading by their senior year. To attain the goal, students must meet a predetermined performance score on a test similar to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The reading proficiency goal requires students to know how to analyze situations\norganize and synthesize written information\nand make written and oral reports. Only 42 percent of HSTW students who enroll in ninth-grade-level English courses achieve the reading proficiency goal, while 72 percent of students in accelerated or college preparatory ninth-grade English reach the HSTW proficiency goal. (Figure 2) A similar pattern is evident in mathematics. Of high school students who do not complete an algebra course equivalent to college preparatory algebra, fewer than 25 percent meet the mathematics performance goal set by High Schools That Work. Students who meet the goal are able to use concepts from algebra, statistics and geometry to reason and solve problems. Half of the students who complete a college preparatory course in algebra or its equivalent meet the HSTW performance goal by graduation. About 86 percent of those who complete Algebra II or geometry in high school meet the mathematics performance goal. (Figure 3) When High Schools That Work followed 6,000 students a year after graduation, it found that taking challenging academic courses and meeting proficiency goals gave students an edge in further education and employment For example:  Students who met HSTW performance goals and were working full time or part time earned more per hour than students who did not meet the goals.  Only 15 percent of graduates who met HSTW performance goals had to take remedial courses in college, compared with 31 percent of those who did not meet performance goals.  Only 17 percent of graduates who met HSTW performance goals were unemployed at some time dunng the year after graduation, compared with 25 percent of those who did not meet the goals.  Students who met the HSTW performance goals were much more likely (83 percent) to enroll in further study after high school than those who did not meet the performance goals (56 percent). i Getting students ready to take a high-level Enghsh course and a solid algebra course taught to college preparatory standards is the best way to ensure that they will be ready for the challenges of high school and further learning. I Why aren't students ready to do challenging work? How did we get into a pattern of lagging performance in the middle grades? There is no simple answer. There is, however, a pattern of practices in schools with lagging performance. That pattern can be altered by getting Ure right focus for middle grades education. When districts began establishing middle schools in the 70s and '80s, the focus was on a list of recommended practices and policies that would http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddIeGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htinl Page 3 of 12I Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades: Readiness for Success 2/28/99 12:42 AM provide students appropriate experiences for their ages and grade levels. The recommendations became a checklist of characteristics that \"defined\" a middle school\namong them were teams, advisory' homerooms and longer blocks of time to do hands-on activities. -------- Accotnmodating versus expecting Every middle school visited by the SREB staff sorted students. For one group of students, the focus was on academic achievement and accelerated learning. For the rest, the focus was on textisook coverage, special short-term instructional programs and self-esteem improvement. In class after class, students were relearning content covered in earlier grades. High standards for all students became n reading a novel on the same theme,\" but honors students were expected to demonstrate deeper comprehension by doing more literary' research and writing. Figure 2 Percent of Students Meeting HSTW English Performance Goal Ninth-Grade Course Assignment 80% ... 72%. 60% j j5 (. I i 40% 20% 0% 19% Basic 42% Regular HighL 5 i I 1 ti Figure 3 Percent of Students Meeting HSTW Mathematics Performance Goal Courses Completed in High School 100% 86^ 80% 60% 40% 20% 24% 0% Basic yathemstics Algebra I Algebra Gegro http://www.sreb.org/Progranis/MiddleGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htinl Page 4 of 12 Raising the bar in tne iviiaaie oraues\nKeauiness lui jullho -- Data from both the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Third International Mathematics and Science Study report that sorting students leads to different expecUtions and lower achievement\nwhat is taught (curriculum) and what is expected (standards) make a difference in student achievement. i Data from the National Assessment of Education Progress show that more eighth-grade students (50 percent) in SREB states are assigned to English courses according to their ability than are students across the country (33 percent). J) , Schools that accommodate students by sorting them into different levels limit their j access to further opportunities\nstudents who are accommodated through lower license to \"hide\" from more challenging work. expectations are given a Social development versus academic performance What was missing from the checklist was the ultimate purpose of the middle school: academic achievement that would prepare students for challenging, rigorous work in high school. When parents and educators are asked about their vision for the middle grades, they frequently say that students should \"feel good about themselves,\" \"reach their full potential\" or \"enjoy coming to school.\" All of these are important, but where is the focus on learning? It is no accident that schools that focus on academic improvement have students who periorm at a higher level. No common expectations for performance Observations and conversations with students, teachers, administrators and parents in the SREB states confirm that too few students are ready for the challenges of high school. Eighth-grade students in schools visited b\\SREB staff reported that they \"read one or two books on their own during the year.' Teachers of pre-algebra and general math estimate that at least half of their students are not ready for algebra. Eighth-grade promotion policies in some states require that students must pass only two or three of the four core subjects\nparents believe that passing grades are sufficient evidence that a student is ready for high school work. N In most school systems, there are no common expectations for the content knowledge and skills needed by all students to be ready for high school work. States may have set grade-by-grade standards, but the accompanying examples of quality student work have not been set by local districts and schools. As a result, far too many students trip and fall in ninth grade as they begin the last lap of secondary education. Doing the right things with the wrong focus One of the key recommendations for having effective middle schools is to create small, personalized communities for learning. Many middle grades sites organize teachers and students into teams to obtain smaller learning units within the school. These sites also may set aside advisory periods so that students and teachers can develop closer and more supportive relationships. Vision and Purpose We want all our students to have choices when they leave this middle school. If they want to take accelerated courses, we want them to be prepared by knowing the content that they need.\" A Memphis, Tennessee lead teacher Unfortunately, having key practices becomes more important in some schools than usInglEhe key practices to improve teaching and learning. littp://www.sreb.org/Prograins/MiddleGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htinI Page 5 of 12I Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades: Readiness for Success f I i If i Tecun teaching across subject areas 211^199 12:42 AM f In a 1993 study by the National Middle School Association, 45 percent of schools reported organizing tochers into teams in core academic areas. About 75 percent of schools with such teams provided two planning penods for teachers to work together. However, according to logs of team meetings the fnr.115 nf the fpam ic liV-Ak trv Ra manoninn Ptii/4A7kAkotMz^,^r,iKz. 2..* J___ ---:----::--- focus of e team is likely to be managing student behavior, filling out pai^nvnrlc and nbnn^ Cltpn uc fia1 H triro onrl  r.....___- JT__ i.'---------- - xo xmvijL yy\naiuuciu uciiAv lUK lining mil papenvork and planning events such as held tnps and assemblies. In rare cases, teams focus on examining student achievement data aniTctlirlAnt xtzr\\rV rnmnlon. a.* .^1 zs. __i_______: ---------------------------- .------- J-T ---------------------------J--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------^^^*****AA***jg, jkUMvin. avmcYcxxicui u and student work .samples\non planmng and reviewing lesson strategies\nand on analvang stiiHenr responses. Yet ifisthat locus on student learning and performance that acceleraleT^ademir' achievement  ! pi f ! Guiding and advising students Likewise, the National Middle School Association study reported that in 1993 nearly half (47 percent) of all middle schools had teacher-based guidance programs, compared with 39 percent in 1988. Two-thirds of these advisory programs meet daily for 15 to 30 minutes. Adyis^ periods are supposed to provide early adolescents with social and emotional aL,4.  -----------------------------IT----------------- I _________t____________________s* ---------------Tw auviai aiiu ClllUtlUllU sufipo^jece^gry^for acadiinic. success jn school. H^iTeVer, they are more likely tn consist of roll call, school announcements and unstructured social'time for stucfents. i 5 f { If a school believes that teacher guidance is important, it will develop or adapt a guidance curriculum trv'llCAC nn lonHomiri z^ :_____r_______ , / C--------- I ----------- that focuses on academic counseling in addition to issues of concern to adolesomts \"Uniiy i 20-minute periods are not long enough to implement an effective guidance curriculum Forthat scht^ls should schedule longer periods once a week or twice a month\nteachers should work together to plan a senes of topics with well-developed lesson plans. For instance, one topic for an eighth-grade advisory curriculum might be \"What is high school really like?\" Former students might come back to tai If Ahnnt fhAir pvrvmorioflf' iirkn* +l.-zxz^ z,z.l.:-.z.  ______1 _   talk about eir experiences and what it takes to achieve in academic courses. 1 Dr. James Stigler I t I i \u0026amp; I \"I once asked a group of American teachers to create a lesson plan. They took 15 minutes to do It. ... 'Hie AfiKrican plans always say what the teacher is going to do. the Japanese plans ask wtMt the students are going to think if the teacher does this. ... Then 1 asked on of the American teachers to teach the lesson... It was a complete disaster\neverything went wrong. ... American teachers don't have any experience jointly talking about instruction. When they get together, they don't talk about lessons. They talk about all manner of other professional and personal issues but almost never discuss how they actually teach their 1 I \"Lessons in Perspective\nHow Culture Shapes Math Instruction in Japan, Germany, and the United SUtes\" The California State University Institute for School Reform Block scheduling A quote from a recent Third International Mathematics and Science Study summarizes the dilemma over time in schools\n\"It's not just how long you make it but how you make it long.\" The study found that longer classes meant more repetition and boredom if the extra time was not used effectively with specific goals in mindi ---------------------------------- Many middle schools have lengthened their classes. In education lingo, they have adopted \"block scheduling.\" There is much debate over how long the blocks should be, which courses should be taught every day and what happens to students who miss these longer classes. Teachers often say that their preparation for the change to block scheduling included one or two workshops but that they learned mostly from experience. What did they leam? Teachers say they do more projects but the .protects are_gften add-ons or time fillers and not an integral part of instnictio^ I 'he kiHs fep them\" is a one or two workshops but that they common comment. And block schedules are often just rigid as the traditional 45- to 50-minute http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddIeGrades/RaisinaBar/raisebar.html Dperiod-just longer. rxiTx 5 scheduling to improve student performance have changed 1 sgn\u0026gt;f\u0026gt;cant ways. Teachers work with students to studv fewer topics in greater depth and to demonstrate greater understanding of content through comparing. analvSng, summ^zing and rej^rting Lesson plans foci^ on what students will do rather than what the teacher will do. Students are challenged with problems and issues that have more than one solution or perspective- solutions, decide which is best and defend their choice both oraUy have changed or perspective\nTeachers and administrators who see longer blocks of time as essential to learning also emphasize the  \"g b^ed on academic purpose. For instance, EnghsM^guage sav tn tniv Tnakf rnnnArtmnc _______i- ai lo icacuci b often say to truly make connections among readin\nQ wri ting, speaking, research and grammar requires *.u  1 VI  Jr .  i^sarcn ano grammar r more time than is avmlable even in 90-nunute blocks. Schools that are focused on students and academics are more likely to allow teams to schedule learning time based on purpose rather than organizational need. man md Louisville, Ky., teams are free to create their own schedules based on their ac^emic needs. For example, math classes may be shorter (but more frequent) than social studies classes. Science classes may be longer on \"lab days.\" This level of flexibility is too rare in scnoois loaay. A Kentucky Educator i The most dranMic change due to state testing has been that classroom practice has been more content-dnven, nwre focused on what students need to know, because we reauired students to do son^thing with what they learned - make a graph, summarize what they read in their own words, organized results into a table.\" H A Tennessee Eighth-Grader . *nniV.^w\u0026lt;-^'av^\u0026lt;ir\u0026lt;'/avinw\u0026gt;v.'.v science teacher teaches real science, things that you can do, and it\ns a lot more interesting. She really n-igs to teach us. Some teachers haven't really tried to teach us  they teach the book. Good teachers want you to learn and find any way they can to help you.\" Getting itb^kward: Finding the standards that fit rather than fitting instruction to standards States and distncts have set content and student achievement standards at specific grades. But settine standards is only the first step. AlLschools need to convert standards into descrintion.sofwnrV ,SXEgc^ of all students prepmng for college and employment. When teachers have examples of the quality.ot_work ej^ted to meet the stand^ds, they will use standards iFa'annine in.stnictinn nnd ^sessing acluevement. Without ei(amples ot quality work, teachers will conPnue to plan and tSch they-^ways have and, when asked, will find a standard that fits the lesson. One teacher said \"In a middle school classroom, I can find a standard that will fit anything I plan to teach\"  use stydards in planning instruction a^ as States have developed smdards based on higher-level thinking and skills, but they may continue to use tests that measure lower-level skills, such as the ability to recall isolated facts. And in classrooms in every district and every state, teachers drill students on sample test items of isolated facts\nIn a school visited by an SREB staff member, one English teacher designed a lesson on the state standards relating to vocabulary development, writing and poetry in a way that was creative eneaeed students and resulted in an onginal poem. In the other Engl ish classrooms, teachers assigned U/rrVch^*tC' /itk vrv'oKill'an/ lictc 'inri ri Till ^\u0026gt;-5 _________i _ worksheets with vocabulary lists and drilled students on sample items from the state uA,-i . V f j' 1.  .-J ------------------1'------assessment test. While one teacher focused on havmg students actually use new words to create a poem, the others http://www.sreb.org/Progranis/MiddleGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htinl Page 7 of 12Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades: Readiness for Success emphasized isolated bits of information that may be forgotten quickly. 2/28/99 12:42 AM Effecuve teaching balances the need to know and remember with the ability to apply know-ledge 1 real-world problems. When students who are achieving at high levels talk about what is different about their classes, they often say they are doing \"real science\" or using numbers that \"mean something.\" In other words, they are thinking for themselves and finding new- w'avs to use the knowledge they are acquiring. to HSgad\u0026amp;gre grg no concrete indicators or examples of quality student work, the textbook or the latest .prpgrqm^omes the curriculum and the instruction, hducators talk about the impnrtanrp nf curriculum, instruction and assessment. They say that they want to determine content topics plan experiences necessary to leam the content and check to see whether students know the content and how to use It. Eight very different middle schools in five states visited by SREB staff all have the same commercial reading program - a \"quick fix\" to low reading scores. None of the schools visited could sh^e models of exemplary student work that educators used to judge acceptable student performance If there are no specific learning goals and no examples of work that meets the goals, how can schools determine what content students need to leam and whether they have learned it? A Texas Middle School Principal 5 I M 'We have a whole quick-fix culture that says, 'Get your test scores us if you buy this program.' when other principals ask me how I turned my school around, they really expect me to say 1 bought this or that, they are really disappointed when I say to them 'We did it with a lot of hard work!' \" I n I  I i i i I f System structures that slow higher standards Schools do not exist in a vacuum. They are subject to outside forces and inside pressures. Good schools are part of a larger system that allows them to focus on what is important for students In far too many systems, the organization and policies that are designed to support successful learning often have the opposite effect. For instance, teachers know that students do not learn at the same rate. Some need more time, and some may need different teaching. Yet students are moved through the system at the same rate and in the same way. Common sense tells us that students learn better in smaller settings, but as many as 3,000 students are housed in the same building in the name of efficiency. Students who have difficulty learning need expert teachers, yet experienced teachers use their seniority to choose schools and classes with the easiest-to-teach students. In other countries, students learn more by studying fewer topics, yet in the United States students are asked to learn a wider range of topics, making it difficult for them to achieve a deeper understanding of essential concepts. Leadership Developing a sense of academic purpose and a commitment to high-quality learning for all students arises out of effective leadership. Yet very few districts have administrative support programs or match new principals with formal mentors. While principals are expected to be instructional leaders, most do little or no teaching after leaving the classroom for an administrative position. Others spend little time on curricular and instructional matters. Principals admit that they need training in how to build understanding among students, parents and teachers about what students should know and be able to do. I I 1 Leaders focus attention on what needs to be done to improve student achievement, and they make sure Jthappens. If teachers need help planning curriculum and instruction tied to example.s of high-quaEty\" performance in the classroom, good leaders find ways to provide that help. If students need more time to accomplish achievement goals, leaders find ways to add extra time. I http://www.sreb.org/ProgramsZMiddIeGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htinl Page 8 of 12i\n*1 naisiug me oar lu me iviiuuie uraaes: Keaainess lor success Time 12:42 AM Controlling the use of time is a critical factor in focusing on academics and student achievement Most lu UI ling uic uoc UI ulub lo a UI luuiu laciui 111 luuuaiiig uii uuauciiues ana sluaeni acmevement y districts use the same length of school day and year for all students. But schools can control how time ,.Lr^ icncpH Tnnnftpn crbnnl c licp vtalnoKlo l/aominn timia t/^ rl/-\\ *-or.b-r. ^-u___ is used. Too often, schools use valuable learning time to do administrative tasks or for the school's convenience rather than to meet the real needs of students. Principals who are instructional leaders make sure there is uninterrupted learning time. If schools are to focus on students and academic achievement, then students who are having difficulty in the middle i^rades must be eiven extra time and every opportundv to succeed. Extra time may mean ~before-school and after-school tutoring, Saturday school and summer school: it may require different schedules for teachers and students alike. Extra opportunity may mean constant checking on student understanding and a rethinking of how content is being taught. If students cannot reach performance expectations on the first try, teachers must have time and support to find another way to help students learn. Sorting and labeling All teachers say they want their students to be creative, to be critical thinkers, to be active participants and to be problem-solvers. But how they define those terms and what they think their students will achieve are often alarmingly different. Students' opportunities are limited through sorting that begins in kindergarten and continues through high school. Students labeled as \"at-risk\" or \"disadvantaged\" often carry a more subtle label of \"can't be expected to do the work\" or \"needs to be in a lower-level class.\" Sorting ^d ladling in SREB states have the greatest negative effect on students in classes lower than \"honors\" level. Students assigned to average-ability maematics classes in SREB states scnred  significantly lower than similar eighth-graders across the United States. We should challeng^aiO. students to meet performance expectetions sinular to what is expected of students in college preparatory co^ufses. One set ot expectations and one set of criteria for quality work should be applied to all students. If we are going to group students, the groups should focus on providing extra opportunity' and extra time to accomplish challenging work, not on lower standards and expectations. A similar sorting process happens to teachers through teaching assignments. The system of seniority most often matches the newest and least experienced teachers to schools and classrooms that have students with the greatest needs. Interrupt Class? America, Yes\nJapan, No \"We measured how many times the lesson was interrupted by someone coming into the classroom or an announcement coming over the public address system. This ^ppened during 31 percent of the American lessons, 13 percent of the German lessons and none of the Japanese lessons.... They couldn't believe that someone would interrupt a moth lesson or disturb students like this.\" II ,n 'Lessons in Perspective: How Culture Shapes Math Instruction in Japan, Germany, and the United States A South Carolina High School Principal \"1 got my better teachers to teach 'other' [not honors] students, and amazingly these 'other' students passed Algebra and Algebra II. They could do it. If teachers believe they are good and students know they have good teachers, the changes are remarkable. I would change middle schools and mix students and teachers.\" I ! 1 ny http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddleGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htinI Page 9 of 12Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades\nReadiness for Success 2/28/99 12:42 AM One Texas middle school principal reassigned teachers and students as one of his first acts as principal.' Teachers who had taught the \"best\" students were assigned to \"other\" students, and test scores began to rise. The best teachers had higher expectations and a broader range of teaching strategies, and students began to meet the higher expectations. When students began to experience success attendance went up and the climate for learning improved throughout the school.  / Likewise, the teachers in that Texas middle school who began to teach \"honors\" students for the first time began to believe they were \"good\" teachers. Faculty morale went up, and teacher expectations were raised. I Changing the focus to student achievement Recently, a representative from a large urban district spoke out in frustration: \"Too many teachers and administrators just don't get it! They think that when they open the doors to the school, the kids will come whether they are doing a wonderful job or not. With choice and charter schools, that may not be the case. I ask them, 'Do you want the kids to say \"I love coming to this school,\" or do you want to hear \"I hate this school\"?' Many teachers don't understand that we could be like the dinosaurs.\" What they don't get is the importance of putting student academic performance at the center of education. ( i I Discussions about poor performance often provoke discomfort, blame, finger-pointing and fear. By providing time and help in coming to agreements on the quality and quantity of student work that is acceptable, leaders can allay fear and confusion and develop cooperation and focus. Developing, refining and updating curriculum and changing the focus to student achievement require time, expertise and resources, information and financial support National, state and local standards can guide schools, but teachers, school leaders and parents can come together to examine student performance. What all students are expected to know and do should be described by performance criteria and supported with examples of quality student work that provide evidence that students are ready to tackle challenging work in high school. An Eighth-Grade Language Arts Teacher n '/ teach eighth-grade reading improvement. 1 had 40 students on the first day of school\nsome had passed the state test, and some had not. I can tell you right now that passing the test does not mean the student can read on an eighth-grade level.\" Every middle grades teacher should know what is to be done at every grade level to ensure that all students who complete eighth grade have attained eighth-grade standards and show readiness for a challenging ninth-grade program. Meeting high expectations and challenging standards requires continuous, coherent effort and progress through the middle grades. Passing a test does not guarantee that students can do challenging work. By agreeing on examples of work expected at every grade level that correspond to expectations in \"honors\" courses, teachers can align instruction and assessment with the standards. Research Paper Assignment http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddIeGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htniI Paee 10 of 12Raising the Bar in the Middle Urades: Readiness for Success 2/28/99 12:42 AM All students will express a strong opinion or assertion and support it through research to be presented in oral and written forms. Performance Criteria $ 3 1 ! Students will:  use at least three research sources and one mteiv'iew\n complete a narrative using all standard English conventions of grammar punctuation, spelling, and word usage, as well as logical organization and coherent writing\n use a variety of thinking and writing strategies - for example, comparison and facts and details\nor opinions\n include a summary' of their research that explains how it supports or rejects the study questions or opinions  explain how the researched information is connected to the reader and author through explicit examples of the relationship - usefulness, interest, relevance. 1 I Sample Scoring Guide Advanced: The student has located exceptional informatior from a wide range of resources. The method of organizing and summarizing is ef. xtive and comprehensive. There are no English usage errors in the final product. Proficient: The student has used at least four sources for information, including an interview, that are clearly relevant to the chosen topic. The information is organized so that it is retrieved easily and can be connected to main ideas or questions under study. References are noted properly, and English usage errors are minimal. I Performance criteria not met: The student has relied upon one or two resources. The information is not well organized, and the paper lacks focusing questions or main ideas. References are not noted properly, and the report contains numerous English usage errors. No attempt or off-task: The student did not do the assignment or did not use the performance criteria guidelines. Changing old patterns What happens in classrooms in which students are challenged to do high-level work? What happens to students who are judged to \"need lower-level classes\"? There are practices that distinguish challenging high-level classrooms from classrooms in which students struggle to achieve. Some of those practices are outlined in Figure 4. There is a hidden curriculum in low-expectation classrooms for students who are thought to be less able. The hidden curriculum is built on a b^e of repetition and monotony, and it sends a message to students thatthey can't do challenging work. We can change this message to one that says \"This is what is acceptable eighth-grade work, and this is what you need to do to achieve it.\" What will it take to change all classrooms into high-expectation classrooms? i I cj http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddIeGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htniI Page 11 of 12I i Raising the Bar in the Middle Grades: Readiness for Success Fi gure -4 Classroom Practices 2/28/99 12:42 AM High-Expectation Classrooms  spend more time on learning !E I  clearly state goals and performance criteria for all students  aim for clarity and understanding of content and factual knowledge appropriate for the grade level  believe all students can do tasks and solve problems successfully  require students to think and reflect, analyze, synthesize and evaluate  use a variety of methods and materials and communicate a joy for learning and doing  provide time for students to cooperate and try out various learning strategies t! i  support and encourage a sense of teamwork and challenge all students to participate  connect learning to student lives I I Low-Expectation Classrooms  allocate more time to discipline and classroom management  go from chapter to chapter or activity to actinty without goals tied to standards  emphasize working quietly, following directions and using only teacher-demonstrat^ strategies  have fewer opportunities for students to try different learning strategies  ask students only to recall facts and follow one- or two-step procedures  substitute low'-level tasks such as fill-in-the-blanks for written analyses, discussion and in-depth study  lack enthusiasm and optimism about learning and doing among both teachers and students  focus on those students who are easiest to engage  focus on isolated skills disconnected from any meaning to students E Successful schools focus on students and learning rather than on sorting and labeling. Learning is based on challenging standards for all students, and quality is upheld consistently through descriptions of acceptable performance. Teachers know their subject and how to teach it in many ways so that all students can leam. There are successful schools and classrooms in each of the SREB states. The challenge is to make sure that every school in every state is successful with every student. E J F. 1 Asking the right questions Many educators believe that the most important part of teaching and learning is helping students know what questions to ask to get the information they need. Ensuring readiness for high school means asking schools the right questions about the middle grades. 1 i  What evidence of readiness for high school is required of every student by the end of eighth grade?  Do performance criteria describe the skills and qualities needed to do challenging work in high school?  How has the school changed what is taught, how teachers teach and how student performance is measured to better prepare all students for high school?  Are there samples of student work to show parents and students what is expected for every standard?  Is student work evaluated consistently according to known criteria across classrooms and subjects? Do all teachers expect essentially the same quality of work?  How do the standards at this school compare with those in the rest of the state? Nation? World?  How does the school make sure that all parents and community members know what the standards are?  How does the school help students who are having difficulty achieving the standards?  Does the school publish information on how many students achieve performance standards? For example, how many students complete Algebra I by the end of eighth grade or enroll in Algebra I in the ninth grade?  Does the. .school re.nort information on how different uroiins of .students nerform in different http://www.sreb.org/Progranis/MiddleGradesZRaisingBar/raisebar.htinl Page 12 of 12 auca, ncttuiucss lui OQVUCbS 2/28/99 12:42 AM subjects? For example, how many male students complete the reading and wiitin'o ......... requirements? How many female students design, conduct, analyze and report on^science expenments?  How is the school helping teachers learn to use standards and performance criteria in planning their instruction? h *6 I I Looking ahead If we want students to be focused on academic achievement, we also need teachers who believe in academe achievement and are prepared to teach content and to guide students toward high-qualitv work. Without adequate preparation and continued learning for teachers, agreement on standards is a hollow exercise. A recent Public Agenda sun-ey identified some stumbling blocks to raising expectations and improving student achievement\n Teachers generally support the call for higher standards, but they do not view low standards a.s a widespread or urgent problem\n Teachers seem more concerned about students' social skills and values than about hieh-level academe skills.  It I I a li ! Despite these discouraging findings, sgmgjniddle schools are \"reinventing\" themselves and making the changes nec^sary' to prepare every student foTn^orous work inTugE school. WrffronrPvreFinFinb tethers in these schools are involved in professional development programs that encourage them to delve deeply into their teaching and to accept responsibility tor student ----------------------------- success. Dr. J^es Stigler, who 1 ed the videotape studies of American, Gennan and Japanese classrooms for the Tmrd International Mathematics and Science Study, says the key to improving teaching in the United States is for t^hers \"to ask the question over and over: Can you think of a way to make agents learn more. \"The SREB's next report on middle grades'education will examine what teachers should know and be able to do to help students get ready for challenging studies in high school http://www.sreb.org/Programs/MiddleGrades/RaisingBar/raisebar.htniI Page 13 of 124 13/ Y7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 March 2, 1999 L. TO: Middle School Principals FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley .Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: SREB: Improving Teaching in the Middle Grades: Higher Standards for Students Aren't Enough' This article is about improving the quality of middle school teachers, and we can do a great deal in this area. 1. 2. Note the emphasis on content-specific teaching strategies on page 7. Note on page 10 that teachers may need as many as 50 hours of instruction, practice, and feedback to become comfortable using new teaching strategies.\" 3. j? f  S 4. 5. 6. Note also on p. 10 the importance of content knowledge in improving student performance. See the top of page 11 for advice to low-performing schools. See also on page 11 the discussion about teachers reading professional literature and other informal learning opportunities. Remember that I discussed with you the importance of teachers being a part of a professional learning community? See p. 12 for ideas on how to support that. H I $ 45 E 7. 8. We have to know the barriers to change. Note the bottom of p. 12 and top of p. 13 for a list. The next to last sentence is the message: Academic standards will not make a difference if policies and practices do not also change. Attachments BAL/rcm 2/28/99 12:43 AM Improving Teaching in the Middle Grades: Higher Standards for Students Arent Enough j 4 i i Recommendations ,9 How are middle grades teaHieis selected and educated, introduced into schools, assigned c!as,sroc\u0026gt;ms and_subjc5cts, and encouraged to grow profes.sionally? In two previous repf.)ris, the SREB focused on the importance Oi raising standard,s and expectations for student performance in the middle rades. But e.^f^cted to (X'rlorm at the highest levels, .shouldnt we expect ihe .same from hiacher Shouldn t we set high standards tor those who seek to become teacher\n, ' \\ v teacheix to bt' prepaixxl to teach ligorous academic oMlent and to apply research on the best teaching practices in cla,ssiwm3?  9 And shouldnt we expect I 9 Teaching in the middle grades today never Bec^e of praciices in teacher preptirdlion, licensure and assignment m elassTTOms, too many jgacher^mth^iddle^^^^^^^^^ have too little knowledge of the rubjects they ^ch n^v - have uiken ad^'anced English courses, physic.s, chemistry or college filgebra can teach seventh- and eighth-grade pre-algebra, algebra, physical science and English in most SREB states. In SREB states those who teach eighth-grade mathematics and science are less likelv than their peers nationwide to  have had co lege courses m their content area during the last two years. The results are predictable: lagging student achievement in the middle grades in mathematics, science and language arts. Do teachers have the jmntent knowledge needed to teach their assigned classe.^? ticm one SREB state were available to study teaching assignments by class. The SREB believes that if data were available throughout the region, the findings would be similar. In the state for which data were available:  Almost two-thirds of sixth-grade mathematics classes are taught by teachers with elementary education majors.  More than two-thirds of eighth-grade mathematics classes are taught by teachers who majored in mathematics or mathematics education. About half of seventh-grade mathematics classes and only one out of five sixth-grade classes have teachers who majored in mathematics or mathematics education.  In eighth-grade science, two out of five classes are taught by teachers without a science major, and only 11 percent of science classes are taught by teachers who majored in a science content area such as biology, chemistry or physics^  In grade eight, 70 percent of the English classes are taught by teachers with a major in either elementary education or home economics education. Researchers in lexci.s and Tennessee have found that studenls yvho have less effeclive teachers for even one year perform at losver levels over time., even if the quality of teaching improves in subsequent years. Teacher qualitymaitefs /or studem achievemenl.. Education Week. Feb. 18, 1998 While compiehensive legional data are not available at all grade levels, we can sav wi th some confidenix that at least a third of the middle grades teachers in the SREB states texlay hold elementary teaching licenses. A study in Kentucky also concluded that at least a third of middle grades math bttp\n//yfTirw.sreb.or^rogramsfM.iddleGrades/higher_st\u0026amp;ndards/report.htm} Page 1 of 125r Middle Grades teachers ha ve elementary cerliilcation. 2/28/99 12:43 AM Table 1* Middle Grades Classes and Teacher Qualifications Percentages of Classes Taught by Teachers with Different College Majors Subject Area, Grade Level Math, 6th Math, 7th Math, Sth Algebra, 7th Algebra, Sth English, 6th English. 7th English, Sth Science, 6th Science, 7th Science, Sth Heraentary Education 64% 31 16 22 2 82 57 36 33 24 15 Secaidaiy Education 9% 75 37 25 4 5195 4 English Education Major 6 15 Math Educaticn Major 6% 40 53 41 56 Science Education Major 43 46 48 Artsand Sciences English, Mathematics or Science Major 14% 11 18 12 56 47 11 Other** Education Major 7% 11 8 5 14 27 42 11 18 18 * Data was gathered in one SREB state ** Most of the other education majors in eighth-grade English are home economics majors\nin eighth-grade science, they are mostly health and physied education majors.  In rural areas of the SREB states, eighth- graders trail the nation in student achievement by a laiger margin than do students in urban and suburban areas of the region. In these rural areas, a greater percentage of eighth-grade mathematics teachers (29 percent) have elementary education majors than do eighth-grade teachers in the rest of the nation (16 percent). - bational Assessment of Educational Progress. 1996 In the traditional teacher-preparation program, those who wish to teach in tlie elementary grades enter a general course of study to complete institutional retjuirements for graduation. Ty'pically, this course of study takes two year,s to complete. \u0026lt;Dnce students are admitted to the teacher education program, they begin learning to teach tlie numerous subjects taught by elementary teachers. 'I'heir tdectives fire concentrated in courses on teaching methods for various academic areas, and they graduate with a major in elementary education. A Traditional Teacher-Preparation Program Bachelor of Science in Education (Elementary Education Major) By contrast, secondary et\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_380","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Planning for Program Evaluation''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Planning for Program Evaluation''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/380"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\nPLANNING FOR PROGRAM EVALUATIONozo\u0026gt;o mm on 0) z Planning for Program Evaluation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. Memorandum to designated principals from Mona Briggs, Aug. 23, 1999, providing information on standards for accreditation from ADE Memorandum to elementary staff, Jan. 20, 1999, relating to an ADE evaluation of Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) /-yy Memorandum to Kathy Lease and Ed Williams, June 29, 1999, on program evaluation with attached articles on qualitative research and an example of a research report from Austin ISD by Glynn Ligon Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Feb. 1, 2000, with agenda relating to program implementation E-mail to Virginia Johnson and Debbie Milam, Feb. 4, 2000, suggesting a model for the evaluation of ViPS programs /V/ Memorandum in March 15, 2000, Learning Link relating to progress made by schools implementing the ALT assessment program Document from Kathy Leasecalendar of meetings with Dr. Steve Ross since March 15, 2000\nattached planning document on program evaluation E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 24, 2000, providing information about a meeting with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss the middle school evaluation / E-mail to Kathy Lease, May 23, 2000, providing feedback on proposed middle school student survey 10. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Marian Lacey, and Sadie Mitchell, June 12, 2000, from Les Gamine requesting information about the middle school evaluation 11. E-mail from Steve Ross to Kathy Lease, June 27,2000, with attached design notes for Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation 12. E-mail from Kathy Lease to her staff, Aug. 6, 2000, requesting them to place the memorandum and program evaluations on the Board agenda 13. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Gamine, Aug. 10, 2000, providing copies of drafts of the ESL and middle school evaluations\nthen his questions and her answers. 14. Memorandum to Board of Education, Aug. 24, 2000, from Kathy Lease presenting the program evaluations: Title EElementary Literacy, LRCPMSA (mathematics and science), English as a Second Language, and Middle School Transition and Program Implementation. Attached is her PowerPoint presentation: Program Evaluation.15. E-mail from Steve Ross to Les Camine, Sept. 7, 2000, giving his feedback to the program evaluation reports. i7 16. E-mail from Debbie Milam to Cabinet members, Sept. 20, 2000, requesting permission to conduct interviews of parents on the subject of parental involvement. 17. E-mail from Kathy Lease to staff, Oct. 11, 2000, advising them of an upcoming meeting with Dr. Steve Ross related to program evaluation /s-y 18. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley and Vanessa Cleaver, Oct. 20, 2000, relating to our required participation in an evaluation study conducted by the National Science Foundation 19. Memorandum to Gene Jones, ODM, from Kathy Lease, Oct. 27, 2000, inviting him to an intensive work session with Dr. Steve Ross on program evaluation /q/ 20. Document prepared by PRE in November 2000 that lists Additional Programs and Strategies Requesting Evaluation / 21. E-mail to Cabinet members from Kathy Lease, Nov. 28, 2000, attaching Dr. Steve Ross planned presentation to the Board of Education on Using Evaluation for Program Improvement: Lessons Learned 22. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Virginia Johnson, Jan. 2, 2001, setting up a meeting to finalize CPMSA program evaluation plan 23. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, Jan. 3, 2001, attaching her tentative plan 24. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Camine and Junious Babbs, Jan. 5, 2001, providing information relating to outsourcing program evaluations to Dr. John Nunnery 25. E-mail from/to Virginia Johnson, Jan. 5-20, 2000, relating to submission of Core Data Elements to the National Science Foundation 26. E-mail from/to Virginia Johnson, Apr. 14-16, 2000, relating to CPMSA program evaluation issues J 27. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Camine, Jan. 22, 2001, attaching a draft of the work from Dr. John Nunnery 28. Memorandum (one of several) from Kathy Lease, Jan. 24, 2001, inviting participants to the first meeting of the Research Committee /TO29. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to John Walker, Jan. 24, 2001, inviting him to participate in first meeting of Research Committee 30. Agenda for Feb. 5, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 31. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Eddie McCoy, Ed Williams, and Karen Broadnax, Feb. 16, 2001, to set up a meeting to discuss ESL program evaluation /73 32. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to Research Committee setting up Feb. 26, 2001, meeting 33. Agenda for Feb. 26,2001, Research Committee meeting and sign-in sheet 34. Invoice from Dr. John Nunnery to LRSD for services rendered, February-March 2001 35. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to CPMSA staff, Feb. 21, 2001, setting up a meeting to discuss the CPMSA program evaluation /v7 36. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, March 14,2001, providing updates 37. E-mail to middle school staff from Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 15, 2001, summarizing a meeting to plan for a Middle School Team Leaders Institute, including recognition of need to train team leaders on assessment and using data /7? 38. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to CPMSA staff. Mar. 19, 2001, setting up follow-up meeting to discuss CPMSA program evaluation /?O 39. Memorandum to Carnegie Management Team, March 20, 2001, from Bonnie Lesley with information about counseling program and need for a program evaluation /^/ 40. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, Apr. 16, 2001, setting up next meeting on summer school evaluation and program evaluation for the National Science Foundation grant 41. Sign-in sheet for Apr. 23, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee 42. E-mail from Bormie Lesley to Dennis Glasgow, Suzi Davis, and Laura Beth Arnold, April 17, 2001, to discuss program evaluation for Element 5 of the Safe Schools/ Healthy Students project 43. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 18, 2001, relating to next steps in providing information about SAT9 item analyses for teachers 1^5 44. E-mail from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 25, 2001, relating to survey needs for national evaluation of Safe Schools/ Healthy Students project45. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to elementary and middle school staff, Apr. 26, 2001, summarizing a large scale study that links classroom practices to student achievement in mathematics 1^7 46. E-mail among team working on CPMSA program evaluation, Apr. 18-May 2, 2001, relating to model for program evaluation and data analysis I'S'^ 47. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, May 2, 2001, with attached latest version of the Guidelines for Program Evaluations 1^^ 48. Agenda for May 7, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet no 49. E-mail from Don Crary to Bonnie Lesley, May 24, 2001, announcing that a program evaluator had been hired by New Futures to conduct the program evaluation for Safe Schools/ Healthy Students 50. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee with attached memorandum relating to next meeting on June 11, 2001 51. Agenda for June 11, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 52. E-mail from Junious Babbs to Bonnie Lesley, June 12, 2001, relating to information on program evaluation /'iV 53. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Compliance Team, June 14, 2001, with an outline of a plan for the completion of the Middle School Evaluation I 54. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, June 14, 2001, attaching a copy of final draft of Dr. Nunnerys evaluation of the mathematics/science programs 55. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to Ed Williams, July 3, 2001, requesting additional ALT reports n7 56. E-mail from Vanessa Cleaver to others working on CPMSA program evaluation, July 10,2001, requesting help in publishing a three-year progress report on the CPMSA1 ssc .1 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Instructional Resource Center 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206 August 23, 1999 To: Principals Designated for Standards Review 1999-2000 LL- (Carver, Cloverdale E., Geyer Springs, Gibbs, Hall, King, Mabelvale E., Meadowcliff, and Pulaski Heights Middle) t 51 J1 J From: Through: RE: Mona Briggs, Technical Assistance Team Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent for PRE Standards Compliance Checklist As you know, I have invited Bettye G. Davis, the specialist at the Department of Education for Standards Assurance, to meet with us on September 29,1999, at 3:30 p.m. (IRC, room 12). In order to further your understanding of the standards for accreditation, I am providing you with a copy of the compliance checklist that was furnished to us last year. While there may be some minor changes in this years checklist, this will give you a sense of the documentation you will be collecting for the states visit. If you will take a moment and review this document, it may help clarify what is involved and may also serve as a catalyst for formulating questions that you may want Ms. Davis to address during our meeting. If you have any questions, you may e-mail me at mrbrigg@.irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us or call me at 324-2120. (If you are not able to attend the September meeting, please notify my office and give me the name of the person who will be your designee at the meeting.) I ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS STANDARDS FOR ACCREDITATION COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST LEA. DISTRICT SCHOOL  I I I 5 Grade Levels Enrollment Field Services Specialist Date Rev. 6/98 ,'' Standard Yes No EVIDENCE/COMMENTS I. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES 5 S A. Policies and actions are non- discriminatory and in compliance with state and federal laws.  Equity Compliance Report  Equity Assistance Center Verification B. State and National Goals I. II.A fl C. School District Goals ILB 1, The district's five-year educational plan (all schools' COE plans) has been developed, with staff and community participation. It is reviewed annually, and public meetings (district and school) are held to discuss progress. This information is published annually.  Newspaper article(s)  Date and attendees for meeting II.B f D. School District Administration II.C It s 1. School board policies  Copy of school board policies 2. Reports and records  Test results on file with ADE II.C.l II.C.2 i I 1 I5 I 3 1 J t t I if 1 I 3 standard Yes No li. The school board held a public meeting to review progress toward accomplishing district goals and accreditation.  Minutes F. School Goals 1. 2. n.c.3 LD evidence/comments The school has an appropriately developed and reviewed school improvement plan. (Reviewed under I-C)  COE plan The school has an in-depth five year curriculum review. (Reviewed under II-A-1) G. The community is actively engaged in the educational program. * Appropriate documentation H. The discipline policies are written and filed according to established 1 I. J. r.D.i I.D.2 III. V.D 4 i guidelines.  Discipline policies  Signed written statements There is a written policy that governs participation in extracurricular activities. * Extracurricular activities policy There is a written homework policy. Homework policy K. The enrollment and attendance policy is consistent with applicable laws and regulations.  Policy L. Grades assigned to students reflect only educational objectives and are consistent with laws and regulations.  Grading policy V.E-F V.G VI. VILB A 2I  I i * ______ \\ Standard Yes No EVIDENCE/COMMENTS f sI I a I I 4II ! ! 2. 3\nTime is scheduled for instruction in the core curriculum (language arts, math, social studies, science).  Schedule/ Observation Time is scheduled for instruction in the other curriculum areas as specified in the Standards.  Schedule/ Observation C. Grades 5-8 1. Instruction is developmentally appropriate.  Observation 2. Time is scheduled for instruction in the core curriculum (language arts, math, social studies, science).  Scheduie/Observation 3. At least one semester of Arkansas history is taught in grade seven or eight (or in grades 9-12).  Scheduie/Observation 4. Time is scheduled for instruction in the other curriculum areas as specified in the Standards.  Scheduie/Observation D. Grades 9-12 *(may be taught every other year) 1. Language Arts-6 units 4 units English 1 unit oral communications or Vz unit oral communications and V2 unit drama * 1 unit journalism IV. IV. 13 I 1i ' IV, IV. IV. IV. IV. 4 I3 Standard Yes No EVIDENCE/COMMENTS 1 j 5  I f s I J 'i 1 I 'll j I 8. 9. Health and Safely Education and Physical Education-} 'A units I unit Physical Education 'A unit Health and Safety Education TecA Prep and Applied Technology-9 units (EIGHT UNITS MUST BE TAUGHT EVERY YEAR.) III. GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS A. All graduates have completed a minimum of 21 units of credit._____ B. A unit of credit is awarded for a minimum of 120 clock hours of instruction.____________ C. All graduates have completed the following 15 units of credit: English-4 units Oral CommunicationsA unit Social Studies-3 units or 2 units of social studies and lunit of Vocational/Technical studies Mathematics3 units Science-3 units, at least 1 science unit in a life science and 1 in physical science physical Education-A unit Health and Safety Education-'A unit Fine Arts-'A unit . Transcripts IV. IV. I ( IX.A IX.B IX.C 6Standard Yes No evidence/comments a '^1 I 1 D. All graduates completing the college preparatory path of study have completed the following units: Science-1 unit of biology (or equivalent), 1 unit of chemistry, or lunit of physics (or equivalent) Mathematics1 unit of Algebra I (or equivalent), 1 unit of Algebra II, and 1 unit of geometry Social Studies1 unit of World History or Cultures, 1 unit of American History, 'A unit of Civics/American Government, and A unit elective Foreign Language-2 units of 1 foreign language Transcripts _________ IX. 11 i I I E. All graduates completing the technical preparatory path of study have completed the following units: Science-at least 2 units include content which is equivalent to science courses in the college preparatory track Mathematics-2 units must include content which is equivalent to mathematics courses in the college preparatory track Social Studies-1 unit of American History, 1 unit of World History or Global Studies, and at least A unit of Civics/American Government Vocational credits-4 credits in a vocational sequence are required. . Transcripts IX. I- 1 I 7I* ^5: Standard Yes No EVIDENCE/COMMENTS F. Honor graduates are selected according to the guidelines established by the Rules and Regulations as related to Act 980 of 1991. IX.  Transcripts IV. TEACHERS s Si A. Student-teacher interaction time is a minimum of 178 days. V.A.l A B. Teacher contracts are a minimum of 185 days, including 5 days staff development and in-service training. VA.2 i!  C. The planned instructional time in each school day does not average less than six hours per day or thirty hours per week. . School calendar  Daily schedule D. Student/teacher ratio: 1. Kindergarten 20/1 or 22/1 with half-time instructional aide  Annual reports/Observation 2. Grades 1-3-23/1 with no more than 25 in a classroom  Annual reports/Observation 3. Grades 4-6-25/1 with no more than 28 in a classroom  Annual reports/Observation V.A.4 V.B.2 V.B.3. V.B.4 o at s ri 4. Grades 7-12-Each class has 30 students or less\nno more than 150 students per day  Annual reports/Observation V.B.5 I 1I. 8 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 January 20, 1999 TO: Gene Parker Judy Milam Judy Teeter Sadie Mitchell Kris Huffman Pat Price Ann Freeman Kathy Lease Ed Williams Frances Cawthon FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley,, AAssss(ociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Evaluation of ELLA Please see the attached letter. You may receive questions from some of our schools. BAL/rcm ) DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 RA\u0026gt; MOND SIMON, Director MEMORANDUM DATE: January 5, 1999 ^4/V TO: Superintendents FROM: SUBJECT: Dr. Kevin Penix, Assistant Dire School Improvement and Instructional Support Initiation of Impact Study for Districts Participating in the Second Year of Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) is conducting a study to determine the effectiveness of the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) training and its impact on student achievement. Teachers who. are currently enrolled into the second year of ELLA will provide data on three to five selected students in their classroom. The data collected will be cunent information from the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment. These assessments are administered as part of the requirement for participating in ELLA and should not utilize any additional class time. Enclosed is a sample of the form that will be used to record the data on each student. Data information compiled on students who are in the classroom of the targeted ELLA teachers will be assigned an identification number to maintain anonymity and provide future follow-up studies. The assessment listed will be administered as a pretest during the first twelve weeks of school and a posttest during the first of May or prior to school year completion. A control group will also be used in reviewing the impact of the ELLA training. Again, data have already been compiled on these students as part of a random sample study in coordination with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Training Center. The study for ELLA is in response to the Smart Start Initiative and the accountability of the staff development being offered by the ADE to meet the needs of participating teachers. The ADE is working with the University of Arkansas Research Center in the compilation and analysis of this study. This is part of an ongoing process to assess this staff development impact on student achievement. If you need additional information or have questions regarding this study please contact either the Early Childhood Curriculum Specialist at the Education Service Cooperative in your area or contact the Early Childhood / Reading Unit at 501-682-5615. STATE BOARD OF EDI ( ATION\nChairman - BETTY PICKETT. C onwa)  Vice Chairman - JoNELL CALDWELL. Bmanl Members: ED\\M\\ B. ALDERSON. JR.. El Dorado  CARL E. BAGGETT. Rogers  MARTHA DIXON. Arkadelphia  WILLIAM B. FISHER. Paragould  LI KE GOKin. \\an Buren  ROBERT HACKLER. Mountain Home  JAMES McLARTT 111. Newport  RICHARD C. SMITH. JR.. McGehee  LEWIS THOMPSON. JR.. Tesarkaoa  ANITA Y ATES. Bentonville An Equal Opportunin Employer ! Cooperative Teacher___ Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas Impact Study 1998-99 ____________________ ^District___________________ School_________ ____ ______ LEA# Phone Students Identification # Birthdate Age Grade Check one: Gender. , Male  Female Ethnicity... Black  White  Hispanic  Asian  NativeAm  Other This is the  first year  second year student has been under the instruction of an ELLA trained teacher. Date of pretest Date of post-test Observation Survey Subtests Beavers DRA Pre Post Letter ID Word Test CAP Writing Vocabulary Dictation Text Reading Level Students Identification # Birthdate .Age, Grade Check one: Gender. . Male  Female 1 Date of pretest Pre Post I Ethnicity...O Black  White  Hispanic  Asian  NativeAm  Other This is the  first year  second year student has been under the instruction of an ELLA trained teacher. Date of post-test Observation Survey Subtests Beavers DRA Letter ID Word Test CAP Writing Vocabulary Dictation Text Reading Level Students Identification # Check one: Gender. , Male  Female Birthdate .Age. Grade Ethnicity...n Black  White  Hispanic  Asian  NativeAm  Other This is the  first year  second year student has been under the instruction of an ELLA trained teacher. Date of pretest Date of post-test Observation Survey Subtests Beavers DRA Pre Post Letter ED Word Test CAP Writing Vocabulary Dictation Text Reading Level 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 June 29, 1999 TO: Kathy Lease Ed. Williams FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley,, zA\\Ossociate Superintendent, Instruction SUBJECT: Program Evaluation I found in my files the attached documents which may be helpful: 1. A couple of articles on qualitative research. 2. A copy of the executive summary of a research report from Austin ISD by Glynn Ligon. Please note both the content and the format. Attachment BAL/rcm 06 USING WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT TEACHING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ANOTHER WAY OF KNOWIN 107 Spindler, G. and Spindler, L. \"Roger Harker and Schonhausen: From Familiar to Strange and Back Again.\" In Doing the Ethnography of Schooling. Edited by G. Spindler. New York: Holl, Rinehart, and Winston, 1982. Stevenson, C. \"A Phenomenological Study of Perceptions about Open Education Among Graduates of the Fayrweather Street School.\" Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut, Storrs, 1979. Updike, John. Rabbit is Rich. New York: Knopf, 1981. Varenne, H. \"Jocks and Freaks: The Symbolic Structure of the Expression of Social Inlerac- A Response to Rogers lion Among American Senior High School Students.\" In Doing the Ethnography of School- Edited by G. Spindler. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1982. E.\nCampbell, DjSchuarlz, R.\nand Sechresl, L. t/ziotfrwsfwMcflSHres. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966, p. 9. Wilcox, K. \"Ethnography As a Methodology and Ils Implications to the Study of Schooling.\" In Doing the Ethnography of Schooling. Edited by G. Spindler. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1982. Wilcox, K. Schooling and Socialization for Work Roles: A Structural Inquiry into Cultural Transmission in an Urban Community. Doctoral dissertation. Harvard University, Cambridge, 1978. Wigginton, E. Eoxfire. New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday, 1972. Wolcott, H. The Man in the Principal's Office. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973. I I I I WILLIAM D. CORBETT If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there. The Talmud The direction of education should be based on the proven successes of the past and present. Identification of proven success, however, is not as clear cut as it would appear to be because of the complexify of the educational process and the diversity of the constituencies we serve. It is from the multitude of components that contribute to good education and the variety of efforts made by innovators that we expect researchers to assist us in mapping our course. Since educational research affects the lives of practitioners as well as the students served, it is valuable to have lucid description of the two major types of research by a person who is a recognized leader in the field. Vincent Rogers has depicted the strengths and weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative research and offered cogent examples of each technique. The chapter should be excerpted from ASCD's Yearbook and placed on the required reading list of those who are preparing for teaching and administrative careers. Current practitioners should also read the chapter with care. Those of us who are public or private school practitioners have been both beneficiaries of sound research and victims of poor research. The very word \"research\" tends to lend authority to headlines, however outrageous, to meet the public's appetite for news: Class Size a Factor in Reading Success Class Size Not Important in Educational Achievement Open Education Proves Successful in Affective Education Research Shows Traditional Approaches Best for Basics Reading Scores Improving Study Shows High School Graduates Are Illiterate Headlines like these confuse the public and frustrate educators. They indeed embarrass serious researchers. Much of the questionable research that gains wide attention is \"so called\" hard data research. It is often dependent upon the results and analysis of multiple choice, fill-in, machine-scored tests. Deductions drawn from this type of research are statistical with seldom a careful look at the instruments used, not to mention the effects these instruments William D. Corbett is Principal, James Russell Lowell School, Watertown Public Schools, Walerlowii. Massnchusells. 108 USING WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT TEACHING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH  ANOTHER WAY OF KNOWING 109 have on the educational process. The more the multiple choice, fill-in instruments are used to draw educational conclusions, the more the emphasis is placed on them at all levels. Education, at least in the United States, is correspondingly diminished to serve these evaluation procedures. Qualitative research is much more expensive and requires unusual sensitivity and experience in both process and analysis. Let it be said that meaningful educational research of all kinds is costly and needs talented and perceptive directorship. Let it also be said that a great disservice to both education in general and to conscientious researchers in particular is done by the several who engage in shallow research. Perhaps it is time for serious researches like Vincent Rogers, John Goodlad, and others to call for a permanent blue-ribbon research monitoring committee to rank educational research according to its integrity. The committee would be ready to analyze and answer authoritatively the shoddy pieces of research that appear periodically in the news media. In this manner the word \"research\" would reacquire the respect it deserves and those affected by research would give it the attention necessary to chart the direction of education. The Price of Everything, the Value of Nothing ANNE RONEY In his essay, Vincent Rogers defends qualitative research. Perhaps his need to do so points more to certain predilections in ourselves than to deficiencies in qualitative methods. We are as entranced by numbers as crows are by shiny objects. How do we explain this attraction? Our delight with numbers probably goes back to the very moment when, as young children, we first counted six cookies on a plate or 23 cows alongside the highway or 15 days until Christmas. What precision and economy of expression! What power it was to realize that an unknown that pile of cookiescould be counted and thus controlled, manipulated to divide the pile or to win the game or to sequence time itself. So we began to attack unknowns with numbers, using ever more sophisticated calculations. In a society with competing traditions, populated by people from many nations, and striving to move forward, we encountered many unknowns or, at least, questions for which previous answers no longer sufficed. This faith in the quantitative was reinforced on every hand as our penchant for problem-solving bloomed into technology. For some of us the faith occasionally dimmed. As a new teacher, 1 was dismayed when the librarian stopped at my door, form in hand, and inquired as to my circulation total for the month. I had not kept any circulation figures, I told her, searching about in my mind for a way to construct a number. I stammered something about having 32 students and having been to the library two or three times. She said, \"Oh, that's all right. I'll just put down '150' for you. That's close enough.\" She went on her way? With her went my incorrect number, wafting its way through the bureaucratic channels, making wrong every other number it touched. Realizing how often such estimates are entered on forms, I became skeptical about numbers. They are very nearly all bail-park figures, used more for their economy of expression than for their precision. Of course researchers are not as naive about the precision of numbers as 1 was. They have devised all sorts of safeguards and hedges\nthe standard error of measurement, Type I and Type II errors, levels of significance, degrees of freedom, random selection, and so on. Each safeguard fulfills a necessary function and in so doing, makes the resultant numbers more authoritative than ever. But, transformed in analysis, the original bit of data has been so far removed from its origin as to be unrecognizable even to its mother. I Aitne Roney is Elementary Supervisor, Department of Public Instruction, Knox County, Knoxville, Tennessee. 110 4 -ft JUK  USING WHAT Wfe KNOW ABOUT TEACHING I )UALITATIVE research-ANOTHER WAY OF KNOWIN,. 111 In addition to the seduction of numbers, we must contend with both a predilection for method and the unwise application of quantitative designs. Apparently, pioneer educational researchers came from agriculture and psychology and were constantly glancing with envy at the laboratory experiments of chemists and physicists. Using these models in education, we have applied spelling treatments to classroom groups as if we were applying fertilizers to plots of corn\nand we have counted the responses of students in class discussions as if they were rats in a maze. We have thus removed the variables under study from their settingthe school or the social group, such removal being a condition of the quantitative design. Researchers have not set out to isolate their problems from context. Ideally, each problem worthy of inquiry is derived from both a situation and a review of related research and literature. But in doctoral dissertations, Chapter Twos are often deadly\nand the lines of thought connecting them to problem, methodology, and findings are likely to be less than clear and direct. In other research reports, the space devoted to the review of the literature and the rationale for the study is usually much less than , the space given to metholodogy. Preoccupied with design rather than utility, the researcher is compelled to explicate his/her mathematics for the benefit of other researchers\nthat is, to share the recipe whether or not the pudding is worth eating. Quantitative designs are often precise and elegant. We get caqght up in their tight beauty in the same way that wc admire an architect's elevation drawings, whose delineated grace may obscure the clumsiness of the resulting structure. It is lack of attention Io context and overemphasis on the means instead of emphasis on the ends that make the use of research discouraging to the practitioner. Even if early educational researchers had derived their methods from , sociology, anthropology, and history. we probably could not have escaped the American romance with quantitative methods. And would we want to? Oh, no. As Rogers pointed out, quantitative methods are effective and useful. The power of numbers is particularly persuasive, as I found on a winter morning when the heater in a portable classroom had been turned off the night before. The teacher had complained to rne (her principal) about the cold, but it was only when she sent a note saying \"It is 42 in here\" that 1 jumped up and arranged for her class to occupy the cafeteria. Numbers give substance and specificity to description\nthey support or fail to support our judgments and our hunches\nthey enable its to evaluate reported information. Indeed, a school leader would be lost without his/her quantitative litany: How soon? How many? How often? Out of how many chances? At what cost? Quantitative approaches stem from our logical and analytical ways of knowing. What they do not give us is the context, the setting, the framework of meaning that surrounds each problem and that would abTes w (frialitative methods permit the scrutiny and analysis of individual vari- ^n^jTTTijiir^reserving the setting under study. The reports of guiililntive mwirrii are written as narratives, which h^ the advantage of accessibil-itv of meaning to the reader, being full of concrete references and idenlifj-able characters. If we deal only with quantitative data, like Oscar WiIde's T^THc, weTcnow \"the price of everything and the value of nothing.\" Numbers cannot tell the whole story. It is qualitative information that irises from and addresses th'eTioIi^ic and intuitive ways of knowing that ^ic truF scientist does not fear. References Me.id. Margaret. Coining 0/ Age in Sanioo. Laurel Edition. New York: Dell Publishing Com-pany. 1961. Wilde, Oscar. Complete Works of Oscar Wilde. London: Collins, 1981, p. 418. 91.29 ' Vustin Independent School District ^ Department of Management Information Office of Research and Evaluation Drug-Free Schools 1991-92 Evaluation Report Executive Summary Author: Kristen Blis^. Program Description: The Drug-Free Schools and Communities (DFSC) Act of 1986 provides funding to school districts to combat drug and alcohol abuse on their campuses. In 1991- 92, its fifth year of funding, the Austin Independent School District (AISD) received $464,924 from the DFSC grant. An additional $165,745 was carried over from 1990-91 for a total of $630,669. These grant monies fund a wide assortment of District programs aimed at drug abuse prevention and education. Progrrim components funded during the 1991-92 school year included:  Student Alcohol and Drug Education and Prevention Program,  Peer Assistance and Leadership,  Conflict Resolution Project,  Student Assistance Program,  Drug Abuse Resistance Education,  Elementary Curriculum,  MegaSkills,  Office of Student Intervention Services,  Private Schools,  Education for SelfResponsibility II,  Medicine Education and Safety Program,  Parent Involvement,  AU Well Health Services Program,  AISD Campus Police, and  Read Pilot. The grant also provided for both a full-time evaluation associate and program fecilitator. Major Findings: 1. Students whose parents participated in the MegaSkills workshops had higher test scores than the national average, as well as higher attendance, lower discipline, and lower retention rates than other elementary students districtwide (pp. 26-30), 2. Both staff and PAL students agreed that the PAL program is an effective way for older students to help younger students avoid problems with drugs and alcohol. Dropout rates for secondary students served by the program both semesters were lower than predicted, and GPAs for these students were higher than their GPAs for the previous school year (pp. 10-15). 3. DARE is perceived as an effective way to communicate important information to students about the effects of drugs and alcohol by both teachers and the DARE officers, rhe officers are satisfied with the fifth-grade curriculum but believe the seventh-grade curriculum is not age appropriate and does not convey the no-use message as effectively as the fifthgrade curriculum (pp.20-23). 4. Dropout rates for all secondary students participating in the Student Alcohol and Drug Education and Prevention Program were below prediction, and the retention rate of elementary program participants was lower than that of other elementary students districtwide. Two thirds of the students reported that they learned about the dangers of drugs and alcohol, felt more confident, were better able to make decisions, and saw themselves as leaders after participation in the workshops (pp. 6-9). 5. High school students rank the use of drugs and drinking/ alcoholism in the top five of the biggest problems with which their school must deal while teachers at all grade levels, campus professionals, and campus administrators do not consistently rank them in the top 10 (p. 4). 6. There are considerable differences between high school students' perceptions of the prevalence of illegal drugs and alcohol on their campuses and their teachers' perceptions. Districtwide surveys found that the majority of high school teachers, administrators, and campus professionals believe the presence of drugs is staying the same, while most high school students believe it is either increasing or decreasing. More high school students believe the presence of alcohol on their campus is increasing than do their teachers, campus professionals, and administrators (pp. 3-4). 7. A number of program components were not implemented as planned, including the Student Assistance Program, Office of Student Intervention Services, and Education for Self-Responsibility II (pp. 18, 31-32,37). Budget Implications: Mandate: External frmding agency- Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986 (Public Laws 99-570,100-297,101- 226, and 101-647). Funding Amount: 1991-92 Allocation: $464,924 Funding Source: Federal Implications: Funding of this program has contributed to increasing achievement scores and lowering dropout rates and retention rates of students in the program. Continued funding will assure that more students participate and benefit from its positive effects, Contin-ued funding and evaluation of results are imperative if AISD is to achieve Goal 6 of the AMERICA 2000 action plan that by the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs, as well as AISD's first strategic objective that every student will function at his/her optimal level of achievement and will progress successfully through the system. According to PL 99-570, no local education agency shaU be eligible to receive funds or any other form of financial assistance under any federal program unless it certifies to its state agency that it has adopted and implemented a program to prevent the use of illicit drugs and alcohol by students and employees. MegaSkills 1991-92 Allocation\n$40,650 Students whose parents participated in the MegaSkills workshops had higher test scores than the national averages, as well as higher attendance and lower discipline and retention rates than other elementary students districtwide. These students also showed improvement in these areas since the 1990-91 school year. Nearly all the parents reported that they would recommend the workshops others, and nearly all the principals believe it is important to continue providing the workshops. to The MegaSkills program, created by Dr. Dorothy Rich, founder and president of the Home and School Institute, offered parenting skiUs workshops to parents at 52 District schools. The series of five to eight workshops focuses on such skills as confidence, motivation, effort, responsibility, initiative, perseverance, caring, common sense, teamwork, and problem solving. Each workshop consists of information-sharing,  large and small group discussions, and demonstrations of hands-on activities (called \"recipes\") which cm be repeated at home with children. Two MegaSkills facilitators were hired: one from AISD who was paid from the DFSC grant, and one from the A-t- Coalition, paid for by IBM. Additional workshops were offered at five businesses and three neighboring school districts, but the results of this report only include students from AISD schools. Eight area businesses contributed more than $13,000 in cash, services, or facilities to the MegaSkills project: Advanced Micro Devices, DuRite Duplication, HEB Grocery, IBM, Markborough Texas/Harris Branch, Southwestern Bell Telephone, 3M, and Southwest Area Council of the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce. Additional funding in the amount of $21,980 was also provided by the Chapter 1 grant. The AISD MegaSkills facilitator sent letters to all elementary campuses describing the program and requesting signed letters of intent and leadership nominations from those campuses interested in providing the workshops. Upon completion of 10 hours of training, leaders received certification from the Home and School Institute to become workshop leaders. In 1991-92, a total of 214 District staff, campus staff, and parents received training as workshop leaders. An additional 46 leaders from 1990-91 continued to lead workshops. The schools advertised the workshops to parents through fliers, PT A or school newsletters, AISD cable channel announcements, and advertisements in the city paper. What information about drug use prevention did the program provide? The MegaSkills facilitator and the Drug-Free Schools project facilitator collaborated on an effort to expand the scope of the workshops to include more information about drug and alcohol use, prevention, and detection. During the course of the year the project facilitator left his position, but the curriculum  plan is expected to be in place for the 1992-93 school year. Evaluation A number of methods were used to evaluate the McgaSkills programs, including surveys of parents and school staff, and student success measures such as achievement, attendance, discipline, and retention rates At each workshop, parents were asked to fill in the names of their children on the sign-in form so that ORE could create a database to assess the aforementioned measures of success for the students whose parents were involved in the program. Unfortunately, because all leaders were not firm in insisting that parents fill out the fonn, many parents neglected to provide their childrens names. Therefore, the database did not contain a complete record of students potentially served by this program. The following results are based on those students included in the database. 2691.29 MegaSkills Student Characteristics Of the 1,196 elementary students included in the analysis:  5% were in pre-K, 25% were in kindergarten, 15% were in grade 1, 14% were in grade 2, 12% were in grade 3, 12% were in grade 4, 11% were in grade 5, and 4% were in grade 6 (see Figure 18)\n 15% were African American, 35% were Hispanic, and 50% were Other\n 11 % were limited English proficient (LEP)\n 46% were low income\n 30% of the students were identified as at risk\n 13 % of the students were identified as gifted/talented\nand  10% were overage for their grade. FIGURE 18 GRADE LEVEL OF MEGASKILLS STUDENTS 1991-92 2iid grade The GENESYS program examined achievement, attendance, discipline, and retention rates for the group of students in the ORE database. Figure 19 compares MegaSkills students 1991-92 attendance, discipline, and retention rates with their 1990-91 rates, and the 1991-92 rates of elementary students districtwide. Achievement MegaSkills students achievement was analyzed in three ways. Program students scores on two standardized tests were compared to national averages, to predicted scores, and to District averages. In a comparison of 1992 ITBS/NAPT achievement scores to 1991 national norms, the MegaSkills students scores were above the national average in reading in five of six comparisons, and above the national average in mathematics in all six comparisons. The 1992 ITBS/NAPT scores for these students were also examined using OREs Report on Program Effectiveness (ROPE). ROPE predicts achievement scores for the group of students who have both 1991 ITBS/TAP scores and 1992 ITTBS/NAPT scores. These predictions are then compared to the students actual scores. The difference between these two scores is called the ROPE residual score, which is based on a grade equivalent score scale. If students ROPE residual scores are far enough above or below zero to achieve statistical significance, they are said to have either \"exceeded predicted gain\" or to be \"below predicted gain.\" Nonsignificant residual scores are classified as \"achieved predicted gain.\" j MegaSkills students scores exceeded predicted levels in two comparisons, achieved predicted levels in 11, and were below predicted levels in no comparisons. The Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) scores of program students in grades 3 and 5 were also compared to District averages. The 27 I 1 (TAAS) scores of program students in grades 3 and 5 were also compared to District averages. The percentage of MegaSkills students who mastered the TAAS was higher in eight comparisons, and  the same in seven, and below in none. Anendance Compared with the attendance rates for elementary students districtwide, the rate for the MegaSkills students was higher in both the fall 1991 and the spring 1992 semesters. When the attendance rates are compared to these same students during the 1990-91 school year, attendance rates increased from the spring of 1991 to the fall of 1991, and then dropped slightly in the spring of 1992. A decline in attendance between the fall and spring semesters is common districtwide at all grade levels. Discipline The rate of discipline incidents for MegaSkills students was lower than that of elementary students districtwide in 1991-92, as well as for these same students during the 1990-91 school year. Retention Compared with the percentage of all AISD elementary students recommended for retention for the 1992- 93 school year, the percentage of MegaSkills students recommended for retention was lower. FIGURE 19 PROGRESS INDICATORS FOR MEGASKILLS STUDENTS AND OTHER ELEMENTARY STUDENTS IN AISD, 1991-92 Indicator Semester MegaSkills Students: 1991-92 MegaSkills Students 1990-91 AISD Elementary 1991-92 Attendance Rate Fall 1991 97,0%\n97.3% 96.5% Spring 1992 96.6% 96.3% 96.0% Discipline Rate Fall 1991 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% Spring 1992 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% Retention Rate Spring 1992 0.3% NA 0.4% Parent Opinion At each workshop parents were asked to complete a sign-in sheet and a session feedback form. The sign- in sheet functioned as both an attendance record and a student roster. Because the leaders did not insist that *e forms be filled out, the attendance record was not accurate. A total of 1,666 parents from more than 30 different schools completed feedback sheets evaluating the workshops.  Nearly all (90%) said they gained new information during the workshop (N = 1,646)\n Nearly all (96%) would recommend MegaSkills workshops to others (N = 1,651)\n The vast majority (80%) said the workshops helped them increase their understanding of their role in their childrens education (N = 1,372)\n2891.29  Almost half (49%) reported that since attending the workshops, they have increased their involvement at their childrens school (N = 1,339). Parents views were split in-these areas:  A third (33%) agreed that the lessons helped em teach their children about the dangers of drugs and alcohol: about one fourth (26%) selected a neutral response, and over one third (37%) selected \"not applicable\" (N = 1,315)\n Nearly a third (31%) said their childrens grades have improved since using these recipes: another third (35%) selected a neutral response, and another third (33%) selected \"not applicable (N = 1,324)\nand  A third (34%) repotted that the recipes had a positive impact on eir childrens attendance in school: less than one third (31%) selected a neutral response, another third (33%) selected \"not applicable,\" one percent disagreed, and one percent selected more than one response (N = 1,325). Parents reported at they received new infonnation and would recommend the workshops to others. In the 1992-93 school year, MegaSkills funding will be provided by both Drug-Free Schools and Chapter 2. Since the DFSC grant will continue to fund a large portion of the program, more emphasis should be placed on helping parents teach their children about the dangers of drugs and alcohol, as well as helping them identify behaviors that indicate possible drug and alcohol use. Principal Opinion A total of 37 principals\nreturned a questionnaire at the end of the year assessing the program at their school. The results indicate that of the children whose parents participated in the woikshops, most principals reported:  Improved or much improved academic work (69%\nN = 36),  Better or much better attitudes (74%\nN = 34), and  Fewer or much fewer behavioral problems (74%\nN = 35). See Figures 20, 21, and 22 for a breakdown of all responses to these questions. FIGURE 20 PRINCIPALS ASSESSMENT OF MEGASKILLS STUDENTS ACADEMIC WORK FIGURE 21 PRINCIPALS ASSESSMENT OF MEGASKILLS STUDENTS ATTITUDE ssx Neutral Much Improved 11% Better 53% 29 1 ) i Most principals also agreed agreed that\nor strongly FIGURE 22 It is important to continue offering MegaSkills at their school (9'1%- N = 37)\nThe training increased panicipating parents involvement in their childrens education (86%\nN = 36)\nMost of the panicipating parents improved or increased their communication with their childrens teachers (67%\nN = 36)\nParticipating parents seemed . -------more relaxed in discussing their children, education, and the school (76 % N = 34)\nand ^ey had seen a noticeable difference in the behaviors and attitudes of the student whose parents participated in the training (71%\nN = 34), The DFSC cost per student was $33.99 (40.650/1.196). 30 STUDENTS behavioral Fewer . 60 / Q megaskills problems About the Same \\ 26% Much fewer 1456 J4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 February 1, 2000 TO\nDivision of Instructioj FROM\njction Dr. Bonnie Leslejyy,. AAssssoocciiate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nDivision Meeting\nWednesday, February 2 Let's use our meeting this month to take stock\" of where we are on our Work Plan for 1999-2000. Please bring your copy. People giving reports need to be brief and talk fast. A 1.2000-2001 Curriculum Catalog 2. 2000-2001 Proposed Calendar 3. ESL Update 4. Middle School Publication and Plans 5. NSF Update 6. Personalized Education Plans 7. Talent Development Plan 8. Instructional Standards - Update 9. Cultural Diversity and Prejudice Reduction Training 10. Elementary Literacy Update 11. Curriculum Mapping Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Karen Broadnax Linda Austin Vanessa Cleaver and Dennis Glasgow Gary Smith Bonnie Lesley Mable Donaldson Marion Woods 12. Assessment Plan 13. Collaborative Action Team 14. Parent-School Compacts Pat Price Mona Briggs and Eddie McCoy Kathy Lease Debbie Milam and Marion Baldwin Pat Price and Leon Adams WHEW!! Some planning we need to do\n1. Schedule of summer training and notification to teachers. 2. What to do about thematic instruction? BAUadg 5 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, February 04, 2000 4:05 PM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nMILAM, DEBBIE LEASE, KATHY R. RE\npartnership evaluation Thanks for following up, Debbie. I think you are going to be impressed with the work that Virginia has done. I am. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Friday, February 04, 2000 10:22 AM MILAM, DEBBIE LESLEY, BONNIE, LEASE, KATHY R. RE: partnership evaluation How about Wednesday 2/9 in the morning or Friday 2/11 in the afternoon? Original Message From: MILAM, DEBBIE Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 3:59 PM To: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject\nRE: partnership evaluation okay. Let me know what is good for you. Debbie Miiam Volunteers in Public Schools Original Message From: Sent: To: MILAM, DEBBIE JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Thursday, February 03, 2000 2:56 PM Subject: RE: partnership evaluation I am finalizing it now, in between our orientation sessions on the upcoming NWEA level testing. Lets get together some time next week and you can give me some input on the final draft. There are two sections, per Julios request: Community Engagement, and Resources. Original Message From\nMILAM, DEBBIE Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 1:36 PM To:JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject\npartnership evaluation Virginia, Dr. Lesley said that you put together a great evaluation piece for the NSF partners. She thought it might be useful for our community programs and suggested I get with you sometime. Let me know when you have time to show it to me. Debbie MUam Volunteers in Public Schools 1 6 LL ^h's/oo II 1- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 4 March 14. 2000  TO: Everyone FROM\ne^)r.. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nThe Value of Assessments and Data Analysis Please read carefully the attached article about the results of a school that uses the NWEA Achievement Level Tests that you have just administered. You may also wish to share this information with your staff. 4  '^1- -ft : -J* The new assessments created tons of extra work for everyone involved, but if they help us improve and align teaching and learning, they are well worth the effort! Carrie Martin Elementarys story may help you ensure improved results at your school! Attachment BAL/rcm  # I 8ft: 3 a#\n-,\nData-Driven Success 4 when fourth-graders at Carrie Martin Elementary School made the second highest gains on the 1998 Colorado State Assessment in reading and writing, state officials wondered how we could have achieved so much so quickly. A few privately joked that we must have cheated, but one look at the data showed our changes were serious and real. Eighty percent of Carrie Martin students passed the state reading test, and 65 percent passed the writing test. This compared to 65 percent passing the reading test and 33 percent passing the writing test the year before. And it compares to statewide averages of 60 percent and 30 percent, respectively. Our success is all the more remarkable because more than 25 percent of our students qualify for the free and reduced- price lunch program, and 22 percent have special education individualized education plans. (In Colorado, special education students are required to attempt the state tests. If the tests are too difficult for a student, a zero is averaged into the schools score for that student.) How did we raise our scores so dra-matjcally? We used our assessment program to measure everything that affected student performanceTThen we changed or cut anything that didnt im-prove achievement. 1 Data-driven instruction Carrie Martin is one of 18 elementary schools in the Thompson School District, a primarily rural district of 14,325 students in northern Colorado. Frustrated with the limited information that standardized tests gave us, district officials began using Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) achievement-level tests 10 years ago, but we didnt get serious about data-driven instrucrion How one elementary school mined assessment data to improve instruction By Keith Liddle until four years ago. Thats when we started relying on pre-assessment and state content standards to identify student needs and learning styles, then using that information to plan and implement teaching strategies appropriate for each child. Pivotal to our assessment program are the NWEA achievement-level tests, which have been custom-designed to align with our curriculum and to predict how students will do on the state tests. We used the data from the NWEA tests to measure student progress and the effects of changes in die curriculum. The data also allowed us to predict performance on the state tests, to encourage students to do better, and to point out specific areas where they need to work harder. Even before we began using NWEA tests, we realized we had been focusing too much on middle or average students. If we were going to challenge all of our students appropriately, we needed to raise our benchmarks and stop teaching to the middle. We now try to teach each child at his or her own achievement level. To measure how were doing, we test children at their achievement level^which isnt necessarily their grade level. An advanced fourth-grader might take achievement tests at the sixth-grade level, while a classmate might be tested at the third-grade level. NWEA helped us set up this system by sending representatives to meet with a group of teachers from our district. Together, they drew from NWE^ bank of 15,000 field-tested items to develop math and reading tests that aligned with our curriculum. NWEA helped us develop short assessments, called locator tests or placement tests, to determine at what level each student should be tested. Charting individual students growth on achievement-level tests allows us to focus on each students needs and progress. Most students take pencil-and^ per tests in the fall and spring. At-risk studentsincluding those who score below the benchmark in the fall also take a computerized version of the tests as a mid-year assessment. Most students show progress after the fell test, and they cant wait to tell their parents and teachers about their success. The mid-year test provides the positive feedback these kids need, and most are never at risk again. TTie achievement-level tests also help us challenge our more advanced students. For example, when last years fifth-grade students broke the previous school record on NWEA math scores in 10 years, we told them, We think you can do better. We raised the bar as high as we could, challenging some students to take tests at the highest level. Our students rose to the challenge: Twenty scored above the eighth-grade benchmarks, 17 scored above the seventh- grade benchmarks, and the majority of our special education students J 30 www.electronic-school.com March 2000 t rscored at or above the fifth- and sixthgrade benchmarks. Crunching the numbers I NWEA provides ongoing help with test ' administration, scoring, and data interpretation, which helps us use the test data appropriately to improve learning. Data are collected and analyzed for the ivhgedistrict, for specific schools, for 5 'Hiferent grade levels, and for each stu- TemT Detailed test data for each student showing the students test scores and how they compare to whats expected ~are used dunng parent-teacher confer-prices. For every single student, we set gSalTthat include what the parents will HoTwhat the student will do, and what the teacher will do. If a student is below -yhrbenchmarlc, the student, the parent, and the teacher develop a personal edu-cation plan. Together, they review state -assessment scores, achievement-level test scores, classroom activities, and a variety of other factors. Then they decide on a plan that might include tutoring, summer school^ or other actions to help the student succeed. tests also enable us to provide accountability information~to our broader \u0026amp;5l!ata from the achievement-level school community. Every year, we compile a school profile and an annual report for the district, the state, and our accountability committee. This report includes an action plan, an oudine of our goals, and a report on our measured growth. Among other things, it also includes graphs of our test scores, along with breakouts of the data, such as how girls scored versus boys. Members of the accountability committee which includes staff, parents, Ttiident council members, aniad (commu- nity representative!___-u_s_e_ t_h_e_s_e _r_e_sults to evaluate whats working and to recommend changes. The committee also uses the mtormation to develop surveys that are sent to parents and teachers for more input. We analyze the information gathered from these surveys to make changes at the classroom level. Based on our survey results, teachers detemuned what fifthgraders needed to exit our elementary school. We worked backward, so each grade level was a stepping stone to the exit requirements. For example, we changed our spelling practices to improve daily writing. Each grade level was given about 20 words that are considered no-excuse words. The weekly spelling test was no longer the only criterion for the spelling grade\nif a no-excuse word was misspelled in a writing assignment, the students spelling grade could slip from an A to a C or lower. The no-excase words are cumulative, so students nnust be able to spell words required in previous grades, as well as their own. Once students understood the importance of the no-excuse words, most learned them well. Making time for tests VNo change_________ ___________ Initially, some teachers thought the comes without problems^ achievement-level tests were just another assessmentand a big waste of time. Many said, Were not going to have time to teach if we have to administer all these assessments.' To address these concerns, the districts assessment director and NWEA representatives explaiped how achievement- level tests are differenthow they would show students progress over time. We would be able to see whether our students progressed as much in grade five, for instance, as they did in grades three or tour Hearing this caused some additional anxiety among teachers, who feared they would receive poor evaluations if their students didnt progress. However, as teachers implemented the tests and COMPUTERIZED TESTING By Allan Olson I Assessment experts are just beginning to tap the potential for achievementlevel testing. The next step is to leave paper and pencil behind and move on to computerized adaptive tests that measure each individual students achievement in less time and with more reliability than anything weve seen so far. The Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), a nonprofit assessment organization that serves more than 300 member school districts around the country, is in the final stages of developing an Internet-enabled assessment system that adapts questions to the performance of each student When a student answers questions correctly, the questions become more and more difficult\nincorrect answers lead to easier questions. The idea is to help students avoid the frustration caused by too-difficult questions or the boredom resulting from questions that are too easy. These tests can be shorterand take less class timewhile still providing a highly reliable estimate of each students achievement level. Research shows that scores from an adaptive test are as valid as those from a traditional test of twice the length. As with NWEAs paper-and-pencil achievement-level tests, the computerized tests can be customized according to a school districts curriculum and state standards. Each test draws from a large, calibrated pool of questions that vary according to each students answers. No test items will be repeated for a student who takes the test more than once. These adaptive tests can be designed for both PC-based and Mac-based networks, which enables schools to give tests to whole classes of students and transmit results for scoring and analysis. Typically, these computerized adaptive tests cost less to administer than conventional standardized tests and eliminate the cost of test booklets and materials handling. Because test administrators can connect to a testing service and download appropriate testing infonnation for each student as needed, tests can be kept secure. The new computerized system, now being tested in five school districts, will soon be available nationwide. For more information, check out NWEAs web site at 6t^://mino.mi)ea.i\u0026gt;rg. Allan Olson {allon@nwea.orgj is executive director of the Northwest Evaluation Association, a nonprofit assessment organization in Portland, Ore., that serves more than 300 school districts nationwide. March 2000 www.electronic-school.com 31 II FMO PRESS STwo important new titles from Dr. Jamie McKenzie, a pathbreaking former superintendent and an inventor of leading edge school programs making powerful use of networks and information technologies. Beyont/ Tcchnofo^y Shows how to create information literate schools emphasizing questioning and research. $20.00 -180 pages 2000 ISBN: 0967407826 iJ Is HowTeacfiers Learn Technology Be?* Outlines effective professional development strategies to recruit and win support of all teachers. $20.00-180 pages 1999 ISBN:0967407818 it- r Jamie McKezie Editor From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal saw for themselves how information from the tests could be used to improve student learning, the teachers became less fearful. Still, theres no denying the fact that the achievement-level teststwo one-hour sessions in the fall and another two in the springdo take some time away from ofoer activities. To make time for the tests (and academics), we have made some sacrifices. For example, we rarely schedule schoolwide assemblies or activities that pull students out of the regular classroom and away from core curriculum. Instead, we focus on what we need to teach to meet our goals. It turns out that this has not been much of a hardship. Our surveyshow that students, parents, and teachers all want to stay focused on aca- ~demics. We decided to give up something else last yearthe Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Initially, the school board thought we needed the Iowa test to measure how schools were doing. But as board members saw how rich the achievement-level test data could be, they realized that we didnt need the Iowa test and that the rime would be better spent working on areas identified by the NWEA tests. Teachers werent the only ones who were nervous about the tests. Some parents and students also worried, esjpe-ciaUy when they realized that the district tied these test results to high school graduation requirements. We addressed this concern by educating parents about the tests and the data when their children enter third grade. Most parents are amazed to see that we can predict as early as third grade whether their child is on track for high school graduation. While this idea scares some parents at first, it also prompts them to help their child grow academically. We try to limit anxiety during testing rimes. We reassure the students that theres no rime limit\nwe just want to see this to the six days of state testing that leave students mentally and emotionally drained. http://fno.org how much theyve grown since the last test. Stu Jents who have had experience To order books call toll free 1-888-453-4046 Purchase securely online http ://f no. org/books. html with these achievement-level tests typi-cally look torward to each testing time. They vvarit to be able to prove what theyve learned and what they know. Overall, the test administration is not as grueling for a child as other tests can be. A student can usually complete a test in 45 to 60 minutes. Because reading and math tests are given on separate days, testing takes two days. Contrast Beyond testing Of course, no single test can guarantee success. But weve used the achieve-ment- level test results to work with our entire school communitystudents, parents, classroom teachers, district administrators, and othersto measure the effects of different strategies. By measuring before-and-after test results, for instance, we found that a strict discipline program, coupled with incentives, led to higher student achievement. Students who come to class ill-prepared, for example, or who talk without raising their hands or dont stay on task, get a check. Students who have fewer than three checks each quarter are rewarded through recognition, additional recess time, and other bonuses. Test scores also improved after we increased homework for all students even for kindergartners. Every night, our students are expected to write a paragraph and read for 30 minutes. Homework also includes activities such as going to the grocery store to estimate how much selected items will cost and to compare that estimate to the total. As these activities increased parent involvement, parents have requested guidance in monitoring their childrens efforts, So we developed a system in which teachers send home a weekly sheet that tells what each child is doing, gives a status on assignments, and notes any problems, discipline or otherwise. Parents dont have to wait until the end of the quarter to know how their child is doing. Achievement-level testing allows us to measure the success of every initiative. These tests keep us on track and allow us to create higher standards for otjr students. And, weve found, when you have higher standards, students rise to meet them. Keith Uddle (Iiddlek@ttiomp5on.k12.co.us) is principal of the Carrie Martin Elementary School in Loveland, Colo. Editors Note: For a discussion of the technology of data mining, see Smart Data: Mining the School District Data Warehouse,  Electronic School, September 1999. I i I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I ( I j f I K'    I I I j I 5 ! 1 32 www.electronic-school.com March 2000 I i I L Compliance Report Information Section 2.1.1 We have met with Steve Ross on the following dates since March 15, 2000: May 5, 2000 Leon Adams and PRE Staff to discuss Title I student achievement issues June 23, 2000 Ed, Virginia, and SteveInformation on schools August 4, 2000 Phone Conference with Steve Ross re: Program Evaluation August 25, 2000 Steve RossProgram Evaluation August 31, 2000 Steve Ross^Title I/Program Evaluation September 1, 2000 Conference call with Steve Ross and Dr. Camine re: $20 million ADE loan October 18, 2000 Steve RossProgram Evaluation October 20, 2000 Conference Call with Steve Ross re: Program Evaluation November 2, 2000 Steve RossProgram Evaluation November 17, 2000 Steve Ross, Kathy Lease, and Compliance Committee November 30, 2000 Steve Ross-Program Evaluation December 1, 2000 Steve RossProgram Evaluation December 15, 2000 Steve Ross and Compliance CommitteeConference call with Kathy Lease because of ice storm Program Evaluation Agenda Data Collected Data In Process Future Data Collection PreK-3 Literacy Plan 1. Fall 99 and Spring 00 Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment (OS/DRA) 1. Spring 01 Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 1. Longitudinal study of impact of PreK-3 Literacy Plan using 4th Grade Benchmark Scores. 2. Fall 00 Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment (OS/DRA) 2. Reviewing impact of PreK-3 literacy plan using growth data from Achievement Level Test (ALT) 2. Longitudinal study of impact of PreK programs on student achievement using OS/DRA, Benchmark, and ALT data 3. 99-00 Climate Survey of parents and teachers 3. Impact of summer school on achievement using a comparison of Spring 99 and Fall 00 ALT scores. 3. Impact of Extended Year schools on achievement using ALT, OS/DRA, and Benchmark scores 4. Promotion Rate 5. Attendance 6. Percent of students eligible for Free and Reduced-Cost meals 7. Demographic data: race, gender 8. Special Populations: Special Needs Students, Limited English Proficient National Science Foundation Project Components (K-12) 1. Attendance 2. Percent of students eligible for Free and Reduced-Cost meals 3. Demographic data: race, gender 4. Special Populations\nSpecial Needs Students, limited English proficient 1. Annual updates for SY 2001-2002 (attendance, demographics, special populations, promotion, free and reduced meals, teacher professional development and certification) 2. Identifying trends in math achievement utilizing SAT-9, ALT, Benchmark, CRT, Explore, Plan, ACT, and Advanced Placement Test scores 3. Identifying trends in science achievement utilizing SAT-9, ALT, CRT, Explore, Plan, ACT, and Advanced Placement Test scores. 4. Identifying outcomes of SMART using fall and spring ALT scores 1. Longitudinal study of trends in math achievement by race and gender utilizing SAT-9, ALT, CRT, Benchmark, Explore, Plan, ACT, and Advanced Placement scores 5. Promotion Rate 6. Teacher professional development 7. Teacher certification 5. Identifying outcomes of After School Science Club utilizing attendance rosters and student survey 6. Identifying outcomes of professional development utilizing ALT and end-of-unit math and science CRT scores. 7. Identifying outcomes of professional development utilizing teacher survey data from end-of-unit math and science CRTs 8. Climate survey (teacher, parent, student, administrator) 9. Middle School Survey: Math and Science items (teacher and student perceptions) 8. Identifying teacher/student perceptions of newly implemented science curriculum using middle school survey data. 9 10. Seventh Grade SEPUP Survey (Fall 00) 11. Teacher survey, grades 2-8, at end of each math and science module 12. SAT-9 (math and science reasoning), grades 5, 7, 10 13. Math Benchmark Exams (Grades 4 and 8) 14. End-of-Math-Module CRT (Grades 3-8) 15. End-of-Science Unit CRT (Grades 3-8)______________________________ 14. Math ALT (Grades 2-8)__________ 15. Science ALT (Grades 3-8)_______ 16. Algebra I ALT (Grades 7-11) 17. Algebra II ALT (Grades 9-11) 18. Geometry ALT (Grades 9-11)_____ 19. Biology ALT (Grades 9-11)_______ 20. Physics ALT (Grades 10-11)______ 21. Chemistry ALT (Grades 9-11) 22. Advanced Placement Tests 23. Explore (Grade 8)_______________ 24. Plan (Grade 10)_________________ 25. ACT (Grade 11)________________ 26. Math course completition and final grades (Algebra I and II, Geometry, Concept Geometry, Trigonometry, Calculus, Statistics) 27. Science course completition and final grades (Biology, Physics, Chemistry) 28. Impact of SMART summer program using pre and post test scores 29. Impact of After School Science Clubs using 8 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent\nTo: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, March 24, 2000 1:16 PM LEASE, KATHY R. RE: Steve Ross I would love to join you, but I am in another meeting in a few minutes on a grant proposal. I wish I had known. Original Message From\nSent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, March 24, 2000 11:14 AM LESLEY, BONNIE Steve Ross Bonnie, Steve Ross is in town for a meeting that his wife is attending. He is coming by about 1:00 to visit with me about Middle School evaluation. Could you join us? If so. I'll let you know when he gets here. Thanks, Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 9 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, May 23, 2000 4\n55 PM LEASE, KATHY R. Middle School Survey I do not feel that the questions on the survey forms give us much information about the middle school transition issues-which, I thought, was the reason for the survey-to use in the middle school evaluation. I suggest some of the following be added or used instead of those on the general sheet. 1. I want to know if kids like the way that math (and English and science) are taught this year, as compared to last year. 2. I want to know if kids felt adequately challenged by the instruction they received. Was it too difficult? too easy? interesting and engaging? 3. I want to now if they prefer hands-on, group activities or for the teacher to direct the class through lecture and recitation. 4. I want to know if they had adequate amounts of meaningful homework. Was it challenging and interesting? 5. I want to know if they feel that their teachers care about them. 6. Do they like working with a team of teachers? 7. Have they had opportunities to participate in intramural activities or sports? 8. Have they had opportunities to participate in clubs? 9. Are the number of periods in the day about right? 10. Do they feel they are being well prepared for the next grade level? for high school? 11. Do they like their elective classes? 12. If they need extra help, do they get it? 13. Is time used wisely? too many free periods? field trips? videos? 14. Are kids well behaved in the school? 15. Is the principal or assistant principals visible to the students in the halls? cafeteria? In other words, is the middle school restructuring working as planned? The questions should be about curriculum, but also about the other components of the middle school plan. Did anyone consult with Linda Austin about these surveys? She's the expert and has sample forms for surveys. I am very worried now that at this late date these surveys cannot be done before the students depart for the summer. I thought they had already been done and the forms had been collected. I only got these drafts to review today. Please keep me informed about where we are. 1 10 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, June 12, 2000 3:30 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V.\nLACEY. MARIAN G.\nMITCHELL, SADIE AUSTIN, LINDA RE: Middle School Evaluation Implementation and Evaluation? Kathy Lease is supposed to present the program evaluation in July. I tried to schedule a meeting with her and Ed last week to see where they are on this, but Kathy left town, and we didn't have it. I'll catch her later this week when she returns. Original Message- From\nSent: To: Cc: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Monday, June 12, 2000 3:22 PM LESLEY, BONNIE\nLACEY, MARIAN G.\nMITCHELL, SADIE AUSTIN, LINDA Middle School Evaluation Implementation and Evaluation? I know you heard the request for the plan and / or information on what we believe is working and what plans we have for an evaluation. I think we are still in good shape on this issue and Baker is not pressing. I also think we should keep this issue in \"front of us\". 1 11 LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Monday, July 31,2000 9:03 PM ADAMS, LEON\nMcCOY, EDDIE FW: Design Notes FYI-Here are the notes from Steve Ross. He wants to meet on August 25 (is that Friday?) at 1:00, if thats OK with us. Unless I hear from you. Ill tell him OK. KL Original Message From: Steve Ross-f\u0026amp;MTI^mwhbi Sent: TuesdayvJui To: LEASE, KATlXR. T7000 4\n5^M iemphis.edu] \u0026lt;mailto:[SIVITP:smross(g).metnphis.edu1\u0026gt; Subject: Design Noles' Hi Kathy, Good to see you last week. Attached are my notes. Please distribute to Ed and Virginia. Turns out that I wont be able to meet on 8/4. However, perhaps you could identify a time for a speaker phone call the following week, and we can determine status of the project. Let me know if there are any Unknown Document questions about the notes. Thanks! 1 Kathy, here are my notes on the research plan. Basic Design is Program-Matched Control School with 9 SFA School/9 Controls Leon Adams will provide qualitative confirmation of the initial matchings and history of implementation in grades within schools. Ed Williams will examine 1996 SAT data to ensure that matched pairs were equivalent at baseline. Units of Analysis: Students nested in schools nested in programs Dependent measures: All subscales of all available test data Pretest (Covariate) 1996 SAT, Grades 2-5, Reading/Language Posttests 1997 SAT (Grades 2,3*) 1998 SAT (Grade 3) 1999 SAT (Grade 5*) 2000 Tests Observation (K, 1, 2) ALT (2,3,4,5*) Benchmark (4) Pretest score from 1996 Analyses 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Covariance/longitudinal: Treatment x Year (1997, 1999) on SAT for 1999 fifth graders with pretest Covariance/By Year: 1997 3'* graders with pretest\n1999 fifth graders with pretest No covariate/Grade by Year: Treatment by Grade (2,3) in 1997\nTreatment (Grade 3) in 1998\nTreatment (Grade 5) in 1999. Observation x Grade (K, 1, and 2) in 2000 ALT by Grade (2, 3, 4, 5) in 2000 (Also, separate covariate analysis in Grade 5) Benchmark by Grade (4) in 2000. Special Analyses Repeat above disaggregating for ethnicity, LEP, and no Mobility (1 grade enrollment at school) Factor in implementation scores provided by Memphis. 12 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Sunday, August 06, 2000 10:04 PM TRUETT, IRMA\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nWILLIAMS, ED Memo for Board Agenda Meeting Importance: High Dear Folks, Attached is the memo I drafted for the Board agenda. Virginia, would you and Irma look it over and make any necessary changes? Irma, will you take it down to Bonnie, get her initials, then deliver it to Bev before noon on Tuesday? If you all have questions, let me know. I can make revisions tomorrow night or you all can make the revisions, just let me know what your suggestions are. We can wait to turn it in until Tuesday, as long as we get it there by noon. Ed and Virginia, what Dr. Gamine said he wanted for the agenda and board meetings is just the executive summaries, the conclusions, and the recommendations. We need to keep the recommendations very general, such as request that the curriculum division make additional recommendations on ....or study the possibilities of... I feel sure that Bonnie wont have enough time to react to all the reports to make specific curriculum and instruction recommendations. She will need to see the reports, but I want to see all final versions fkst. I can check my email every night. This will really be a tight schedule and may require some midnight oil, but we have to meet this deadline. The only extra time we might buy is to give them the reports in the Friday package, but I would really like to have them ready for Thursday night. Keep me posted!!! Hang in there everybody!! Kathy Bd Rpt Aug 2000 prog evat.doc 1 13 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE. KATHY R. Thursday, August 10. 2000 11:06 AM CARNINE. LESLIE V. RE: program evaluations We don't have any national comparison data for ESL. Our consultant from Austin was supposed to send Ed some studies, but he hasn't done so. We'll do some web searches and see what we come up with. We'll also see if we can come up with some national sources on Middle School to add. Ed, Eddie and Virginia stayed late last night. I told them they had to bring their pj's and couldn't go home until these reports were finished. We are still getting corrections. I just found out that Dodd's DRA scores were incomplete. That means all of that data has to be recalculated-never ending story. That omission impacts the Title l/Pre-k-3 evaluation and the ESL evaluation. We'll keep you updated on the latest versions. The time of day is printed on the bottom of the reports so you can discard accordingly. We've gotten no feedback from Bonnie, but we are routing the reports for final review to as many of the curriculum folks as are in the building (workshops going on today!). Karen Broadnax has already been in to add her changes. Later, KL Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:09 AM LEASE, KATHY R. RE: program evaluations As you would guess I had only a very brief look at the report and my only reaction at this time is the language assumes we may be different. What I'm suggesting is that the Middle School report suggests the change from Juniors Highs was because of.... If you look at national data the concern about middle level education and middle level youngsters is very consistent. People feel much better about early childhood, elementary and high school than they do about middle or junior high. Most researchers suggest this is because of the age and maturity issues plaguing these young people. Age of raging hormones...! Obviously your lead statements should be neutral rather than conclusive. I had a similar thought when you wrote about ESL, etc. Are those youngsters really different from their counterparts nationally or are we seeing lower achievement than the national data???? Based on what you indicated the district program may be better than or worse than. Any idea which??? Obviously if I'm correct you may want to color the recommendations differently??? Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Thursday, August 10, 2000 9:02 AM CARNINE, LESLIE V. program evaluations Dr. Carnine, Here are the first two program evaluation reports. Bonnie is not in so I wanted you to be able to glance at them to see if they pass muster. The other two are on their way after a few other corrections are made. Each report will have a cover page for Board. Kathy  File: Executive Summary ESL 99-OO.doc   File: Executive Summary Middle Level 99-OO.doc  Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 14 Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 August 24, 2000 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent, PRE THROUGH: Dr. Leslie Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent, Curriculum and Instruction SUBJECT: Program Evaluation In accordance with the research agfenda adopted by the Board of Education and recommended by the Superintendent and Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department is presenting its findings from the first year of program evaluation of the four areas designated for the research agenda: Title l/Elementary Literacy, Little Rock Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (LRPMSANSF Grant), English as a Second Language Program (ESL), and Middle School Transition and Program Implementation. In order to carry out the program evaluation plan, data had to be gathered in three categories: participation, perception, and performance. In order to collect data on the performance aspect of the evaluation, it was necessary for the district to implement a new, comprehensive assessment plan. This plan is ready for full implementation with the 2000- 2001 school year. Benchmark data is now available and growth comparisons can begin for the 2000-2001 school year. Also, data was collected in the areas of participation and perception for several of the programs scheduled to be evaluated. Recognizing that program evaluation is an on-going process with continuous refinements, the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department is presenting an executive summary of each of the four program evaluations, along with conclusions and recommendations. Program Evaluation Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District July 2000 When gathering data for program evaluation, three areas are assessed:  Participation  Performance  PerceptionParticipation consists of...  Who was involved?  What is their gender?  What is their race?  What school do they go to?  What choices did they make regarding curricular, co-curricular, or extra-curricular activities?Performance consists of. . .  Test Scores iwBenchmark Exams ^SAT-9 ^ALTs i*-Explore  Grades  Enrollment  RatingsPerception consists of. . .  Expectation  Application  Acquisition  AttitudeProgram Evaluation Agenda 1999-2000  Middle School Transition  NSF Grant  ESL Program  K-2 Literacy PlanLESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, April 04, 2000 4:13 PM LEASE, KATHY R. Projects Dear Folks: I know that we have a lot on our plates right now. Here is a list of the current projects that I know about and projected due dates. If you have others, please email me. Mona- Lit Review on Middle Schools-April 24 Work with Ed on Draft of Middle School Evaluation Draft-Due May 1 Final Pieces of CM, the plan for June 5, and Implementation Plan for Procedures for Credit by Examination-To Bonnie and me by April Eddie- Title I /PreK-3 Evaluation Plan-Draft Due May 1 Lit Review on Successful Programs in Low-Performing Schools or Program evaluation of Title I schools Yvette-Benchmark and End of Course Training- Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent next year-April 28 14 for review something similar. Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc,lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 LRSD Assessment Plan Using Assessment to Enhance Student AchievementEssential Purposes of Assessment  Improvement of Student Learning  Improvement of Instructional Programs  Public Accountability, Confidence, and SupportThe design of our assessment plan is guided by the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan...  2.6 No barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities 9 AP courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program  2.7 Improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students  2.7.1 Assess academic programs for effectiveness in improving African-American achievementif not effective, modify or eliminateRDEP, continued.  2.8 Promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students  5.2. La. By completion of the third grade, all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a pageRDEP, continued...  5.2.1 Primary Grades  5.2.l.d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems and of knowing-how-to-leam skills\n 5.2.l.g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\n 5.2.1.h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of students\nRDEP, continued...  5.2.2 Intermediate Grades  5.2.2.a. By completion of the sixth grade all students will master and use daily higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences and for personal growth and enjoyment\n 5.2.2.e. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\n 5.2.2.f. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their childs academic achievement...RDEP, continued...  ra  5.2.3. Secondary Schools  5.2.3.a. Adopt as a goal that upon graduation all students will read independently with comprehension in all subject areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens, and life-long learners\n 5.2.3.f. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices.RDEP, continued...  5.3 Mathematics  5.3.2. Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum.Other guiding documents that impact assessment decisions...  Strategic Plan  Title I/K-3 Literacy Plan  NSF Grant  ACTAAP (State Accountability Plan) - Benchmark exams - End-of-Course exams - SAT-9Proposed Modifications to the LRSD Assessment Plan:  Individual pre- and post-assessments for Kindergarten and 1 st grade  Individual pre- and post-assessments for 2nd grade with G/T sereening second semester (CRT and Raven)  Pre- and post-criterion referenced tests to measure individual student growth from year to year (grades 3-11)LRSD Assessment Plan, cont cl... State Required Assessments^  SAT-9 norm-referenced test for grades 5, 7, and 10  Primary benchmark exam (grade 4)  Intermediate benchmark exam (grade 6not yet developed)  Middle Level benchmark (grade 8)  End-of-Course testsAlgebra I, Geometry, and LiteracyLRSD Assessment Plan, contd... District Coordinated Classroom Assessments  Performance assessments aligned with Benchmark assessments and End-of-Course exams  District developed CRTs measuring attainment of state standardsLittle Rock School District is committed to monitoring the individual academic growth of every student, and our assessment program must meet that need.Students use tests to ansyver these questions : a  Am I learning what Im supposed to learn?  Can I do what Im supposed to do?  Am I trying as hard as I can?  Should I try harder?Teachers use tests to ansyver these questions:  Is each child growing in what he or she knows and can do?  Is my teaching/instruction helping this group of students to be successful?  Do any of my students need assistance from a special program?  What changes do I need to make in my instruction?Parents use tests to ansyver these questions: sW ' '  How is my child doing?  How is my child doing compared with others?  Has my child mastered his/her grade level skills?The Board uses tests to ansyver these questions:  Is the program of instruction working?  Are our students meeting or exceeding the standards?Administrators use tests to ansy\\^er these questions:  What staff development is needed?  How and where should we alloeate resourees?State and community use tests to ansyver these questions ?  How well is the district doing its job?  How do our schools and district compare with others?What skills does our community expect our students to have?  Literacy skills  Problem solving skills  Ability to work togetherSchool Report Cards.... High Stakes Accountability  Accountability for individual schools  Who is not achieving? - Identify by name all students who are below proficient level  Why not? - Curriculum - Instruction - Assessment  What are we going to do about it?Paradigm Shifts  Bell Curve - Normal distribution continues to fall into predictable patterns unless interventions are made.  The New Paradigm - Standards-driven system - Smart Start belief systemWhat is a standard?  What we want students to know and be able to do  Common assessment of students 5 performance: create tests worth teaching to  Externally set criteria for passing (a rubric/scoring guide)Standards-Driven Belief System  Effort-based achievement  Clear expectations to students  Clear content standards  Alignment of assessment with curriculum and instruction  Adequate amount of time  Honest feedback about progress  Multiple opportunities to demonstrate what students have learned.Teaching Toward Tests Worth Taking...  Academic Content Skills - Charts, graphs, number line, value of money, fractions, addition, subtraction, estimation, measurement - Editing skills, specific content from reading material (3 types of texts), vocabulary, main idea, plot, character, setting, elements of style, using resource material (dictionary) Process skills - Drawing a conclusionbest answer/most reasonable - Probabilitymost likely what is missing/wh^i^ needed - Reading strategiescontext clues, drawing conclusions (main idea), inferring information: predicting, understanding why the author wrote the material, and sequencing events Problem solving skills: organizing infonnation from one or more sources/eliminating unnecessary information/defending a position (specific to material provided)/ comparing or contrasting Writing process skills: prewriting/editing/revisionChildren's self-esteem gets better yvhen they see themselves getting better, Heidi Hayes JaeobsWhat are the essential questions about assessment?  What do we want to accomplish with our assessment plan?  What is the purpose of the assessment system?  What do we want to do with the information?  How do we value the Benchmark exams?Essential Questions... continued  What difference will the assessment system make in the educational experience of the students?  What difference will the assessment system make to the classroom teacher?  Does the assessment system prepare students for high stakes exams?  What skills are required for teacher and student success?7 Steps to Increase Student Achievement... 1. Acknowledge where you are. 2. Analyze where you are. 3. Align teaching with assessment. 4. Assess in a manner that is the same as on high stakes testing. 5. Attitude is everything all the time. 6. Accentuate your focus on testing strategies. 7. Activate a plan that will meet the needs of your learners. Charity Smith, ADE15 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, September 08, 2000 3:37 PM 'Steve Ross' RE: Program Effects Thanks for you emails. Both of them were well stated! KL Original Message From\nSent: To: Cc: Subject: Stevi ThflfJ 'Tsmrossi iphis.edu] __ [y? September 07, 2000_^26 PM l/carnine@lrsdadm.LRSD, 'ar.us Program Effects rK12,AR.US I have read three of the recent program evaluation reports completed by your research department. They appear to be of very good quality--well-written, clear, and comprehensive. There is substantial rationale, both logical and empirical, for giving programs time to impact student achievement. The first stage of impact is program implementation, the next is changing instruction and/or conditions for learning, and after these effects occur, achievement may be impacted. In our Memphis study, it took at least tvzo years for school reform programs to show/ positive results. In fact, after the first year, achievement scores went down! This same pattern was replicated with three different cohorts of schools. I will be sending you a copy of that report, which should be completed by 10/1/00. 1 16 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday. September 27.2000 6:33 PM MILAM. DEBBIE RE: parent involvement surveys Oh, and 1 love the idea! Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MILAM, DEBBIE Wednesday, September 20, 2000 4:11 PM LESLEY, BONNIE CARNINE, LESLIE V. FW: parent involvement surveys Bonnie, I think you're aware of this already. Do you see a problem with it? If not. I'll send the survey to you when we finish the draft tomorrow. Frances says it's okay with her. In fact, she offered to help interview parents. Debbie Miiam Volunteers in Public Schools Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: MH HE fednesday, September 20, 2000 1J,\n! MITCHELL SAnir PAWW P9r6ht involvement surveys AM ^TRANCES H.\nLACEY, MARIAN G. Dear Sadie, Frances and Marian, Our Collaborative Action Team (CAT) would like to conduct oral interviews of parents on the subject of parental involvement. We'd like to have volunteers in a few schools on Wednesday, October 4 as parents come in for conferences. We will not have enough volunteers to cover all schools so we'll want to select at least one elementary, middle and high school, with some geographic diversity. Would this be alright with you? can run the survey by you tomorrow if you don't see a problem with this. We want to start collecting information on parental involvement since it is our major focus. Thanks, Debbie Mi lam Volunteers in Public Schools 1 17 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday. October 11,2000 5:41 PM WILLIAMS, ED\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nMcCOY, EDDIE CARNINE, LESLIE V.\nLESLEY, BONNIE Regular meetings with Steve Ross Importance: High We now have our meeting scheduled with Steve Ross. Please plan to work from 9:00 until he decides to leave on October 18th. We will review with him all revisions of the program evaluations and go over any new data (just in case any is available by then). We will meet in room 12. Thanks, KL Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, October 23, 2000 5:01 PM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA RE: Washington meeting Thanks, Virginia. Original Message ______ From: WOOlCVtRGlNIA Sent: To: ' Subject: Friday, October 20, 2000 11:46 LESLEY, BONNIE- Cl EAJ FW! WSShington meeting ^vANESSA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nCARNINE, LESLIE V. I have continued my email conversations with Dr. Jason Kim of Systemic Research and made arrangements to have all the materials sent directly to me from the December Sth CPMSA Kev Indicator and Evaluative Study Workshop for Data Managers and Evaluators. In addition, Jason says I will have access to Linda Crasco for any questions I may have. This is great because she has worked with me when I first came on board last year and we have a history of good communication. Her input will give me acess to group discussions where evaluators share \"experiences and issues in core data collection, analysis, utilization, and local evaluation.\" (I took that right off the workshop outline.) In addition, Jason may also be able to send me whatever is collected from the other members of my cohort that includes Beaumont, Dayton, and Montgomery, all of which initiated their programs in 1998. I have conveyed these details to Julio and assured him that (1) he can depend on me to benefit from this workshop, as NSF intends, even though I will not be able to attend in person, and (2) I will make sure that valuable strategies related to core data and local evaluation are implemented here in Little Rock. He has responded that this \"indeed reflects your full understanding of the role of the evaluator in the CPMSA undertaking.\" So. I think its covered from all aspects. Now if you want to send Mona Briggs to take notes it's your call, but it may not be necessary. However, you may want to talk to Vanessa as she also talked to Jason about alternatives related to her needs from the SR workshop. Original Message From: Sent\nTo\nSubject\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA Thursday, October 19, 2000 7:51 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Washington meeting You see, this is why I said to Vanessa that you would have a plan! This is a good idea and I support it. Original Message- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, October 18, 2000 12:56 PM CLEAVER, VANESSA\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject: Washington meeting What if we send Mona Briggs and Ken Savage to the Washington meeting to represent us? Both understand at some level the kind of data that NSF likes to collect, etc., and Mona is great at taking notes. What do you think? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) 1 19 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 To\nGene Jones, ODM From: Kathy Lease, Asst. Supt., PRE Date: October 27, 2000 Re: Program Evaluation i We are meeting as a department with Dr. Steve Ross on November 2 at about 9:00, depending on his arrival time from Memphis. We are doing intensive work on each program evaluation to begin the revisions based on the new data that has come in. We will be meeting in Room 12 at the IRC. We would love to have you join us for the day. We will be meeting with Dr. Ross every two weeks through December. I will give you a complete schedule so that you can join us whenever possible. Most meetings are on Thursdays, except for November 19**^. i Call and leave me a message, if you can come. I will be at a meeting in North Carolina until Wednesday. I understand you really left town! We are anxious to hear about your trip. We look forward to seeing you. C: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent Mr. Brady Gadberry, Associate Superintendent Dr. Don Stewart, Associate Superintendent 20 Additional Programs and Strategies Requesting Evaluation Planning, Research, and Evaluation November 2000 SMART After School Science SECME Vital Link Benchmark Open Response Study for math Elementary Summer School Middle School Summer School High School Summer School Learning to Cope with Differences Alternative Learning Environments Lyceum Scholars High School Academic progress of ALC and ACC Charter School Hippy (as needed for Federal reporting) CAT Scottish Rite Reading Program Voyager Accelerated Reader Campus Leadership Team Survey Climate Survey 21 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, November 28, 2000 4:31 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS\nFRANCES CAWTHON\nGadberry, Brady L.\nHurley, Richard\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nLeslie Carnine\nLINDA WATSON\nMARIAN LACEY\nMilhollen, Mark\nSadie Mitchell\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nVann, Suellen Steve Ross-Program Evaluation.ppt Steve Ross-Program Evaluation.... KL FYI-Here is a copy of Steve's presentation to the Board. 1 Using Evaluation for Program Improvement: Lessons Learned Steven M. Ross Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of MemphisI. -It\nI li I 1 Types of Evaluation Formative: Improving developing programs 3 I a 55 How are we doing? I J  Summative: Judging completed programs How did we do?The Evaluation Process t t  stakeholder Buy-in I  Evaluation Questions - Instruments - Data Collection - Analysis - Report IReporting I  Executive Summary  Introduction/Purposes  Evaluation Questions  Instruments  Procedures  Data Analysis  Results  ConclusionsConsiderations/Suggestions ( 1 I  Evaluation is not sufficient in many districts/ schools.  Evaluation needs to be ongoing.  Programs alone do not increase achievement.  It generally takes more than two years for programs and strategies to increase achievement. IWhat does increase achievement?  Improved teaching  Teacher buy-in  Improved school climate  Principal leadershipr Additional Suggestions: Form a research committee One or more Board members Assistant Superintendent For PRE and designated staff I Selected administrators, parents, students (should have research interests/expertise)Responsibility of Research Committee b i  Committee meets monthly  Reviews reports Initiates and plans new studies Focuses on applying research results to decision making  Board Member(s) serve as liaison to full board IReporting to the Board I  Spread out the presentation of research reports at Board meetings - One per meeting limit (unless there are special circumstances) IResearch Briefs  Research Briefs should be prepared by PRE for Board members who need information in a short amount of time I  Briefs will be highly readable and focus on major findings and implications I22 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, January 02, 2001 3:39 PM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA CLEAVER, VANESSA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nGILLIAM, ANITA NSF Program Evaluation Virginia, I know that Julio is going to want us to produce our program evaluation plan very soon. Please plan to meet with me and Vanessa and Dennis very soon to get this plan developed. Send me what you gave him previously, please, so that I can see what is lacking. Anita, please schedule a meeting for all of us asap. Thanks. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) 1 23 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:55 PM LESLEY. BONNIE RE: NSF Program Evaluation prof dev. evaluation plan.doc Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, January 02, 2001 3:39 PM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA CLEAVER, VANESSA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nGILLIAM, ANITA NSF Program Evaluation Virginia, I know that Julio is going to want us to produce our program evaluation plan very soon. Please plan to meet with me and Vanessa and Dennis very soon to get this plan developed. Send me what you gave him previously, please, so that I can see what is lacking. Anita, please schedule a meeting for all of us asap. Thanks. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) 1 The following plan was submitted January, 2000 upon request by Julio. Julios site visit statements indicate he feels we have achieved these goals. While that is a testimonial to our presentations during the site visit, it is not entirely true that we have maxed out on this plan. You may want to ascertain that records developed in preparation for the 2000 site visit and housed in a Math Dept, computer file will be integrated with the district professional development data base at some time in the future. This integration would permit analysis by grade level, by school, by individual teacher etc, in relation to certification and to total hours of professional development as well as to various program implementation initiatives. You may want to consider how to assess the relationship between outcomes from various program implementation initiatives and professional development using the current data filing system. As you re-write this plan, it might help you to know that other funded programs have the capacities identified in the following plan and that is why they were included in ours. If our NSF professional development data was stored in the Districts professional development database we could access it as part of the identification of outcomes for any program initiative by teacher, by grade, by class, by school, etc. At the present time we are not able to do that. We can only offer a global participation report such as we gave during the site visit. While I am not minimizing the importance of doing this for our site visit, it does not permit any analysis in relation to specific outcomes of various initiatives. Julio saw that. What he did not see and we did not offer was the electronic inability to go beyond the fact that 238 3\"* grade teachers received 3 hours of Investigations training on August 10, 1999. I am painfully aware that folks are real tired of hearing me fuss over this so I am glad to have your energy and guidance. Evaluation Component: Professional Development and Certification of Teachers of Math \u0026amp; Science Procedures have been established to collect relevant quantitative data from (1) the database maintained by the Professional Development Division of the LRSD, and (2) records maintained by Instructional Resource Center personnel responsible for providing professional development related to CPMSA activities. These sources provide incomplete archival data for NSF reporting. Therefore, a rudimentary record keeping procedure has been implemented to document activities until procedures can be developed to collect the comprehensive data necessary for Core Data Elements reporting and other NSF reporting parameters. The initial process of collecting district-wide demographics has begun to identify data for the baseline school year of 1997-98, the first year of 1998-99, and the second year of 1999-20 to date. This activity will continue across each succeeding year of the grant. Data has been and will continue to be, disaggregated by elementary, middle, and high school levels. The total number of instructors teaching math and science will be identified as well as the total number of those certified in math and science areas. Across elementary, middle, and high school categories, total number and percentages will be computed to identify the total number and percent (1) teaching math and science, (2) certified to teach in math and/or science areas, (3) completed less that 60 hours of professional development, (4) completed more than 60 but less than 120 hours of professional development, (5) completed more than 120 but less than 200 hours, and (5) completed more than 200 hours of professional development. This information will be displayed in table and figure form (graph with accompanying table) for the baseline year and each succeeding year of the project. In addition, custom-designed figures will identify demographic trends by displaying the percent of change from the baseline year to year five (2003) of the project. Formats for the tables and graphs used to clearly and concisely display data in this category can be viewed in the Program Evaluation Record. The process of collecting district-wide demographics has begun to identify data for the baseline school year of 1997-98, the first year of 1998-99, and the second year of 1999-20 to date. This activity will continue across each succeeding year of the grant. Data has been and will continue to be, disaggregated by elementary, middle, and high school levels. The total number of instructors teaching math and science will be identified as well as the total number of those certified in math and science areas. Across elementary, middle, and high school categories, total number and percentages will be computed to identify the total number and percent (1) teaching math and science, (2) certified to teach in math and/or science areas, (3) completed less that 60 hours of professional development, (4) completed more than 60 but less than 120 hours of professional development, (5) completed more than 120 but less than 200 hours, and (5) completed more than 200 hours of professional development. This information will be displayed in table and figure form (graph with accompanying table) for the baseline year and each succeeding year of the project. In addition, custom-designed figures will identify demographic trends by displaying the percent of change from the baseline year to year five (2003) of the project. Formats for the tables and graphs used to clearly and concisely display data in this category can be viewed in the Program Evaluation Record. 24 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, January 05, 2001 2:15 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V.\nBABBS, JUNIOUS John Nunnery We are on board with Dr. Nunnery. He sounds like he will really be great. Having a public school background, he is very familiar with the time constraints, stakeholder issues, and politics. I am FedExing him a box of background materials to get started on. He will only be in Missouri for 2 or 3 weeks, then he will join his wife in Virginia. He is doing some consulting work for Johns Hopkins and the Memphis City Schools, but it sounds like he works hard and fast. Let me know any questions you have. Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 25 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent\nTo: Subject\nLESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, January 20, 2000 8:05 AM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA RE: CORE DATA ELEMENTS good, Virginia. Thanks. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Wednesday, January 19, 2000 4:46 PM CLEAVER, VANESSA LEASE, KATHY R.\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nWILLIAMS, ED RE: CORE DATA ELEMENTS I have been in contact with Michael Flynn at QRC about the changes He and Kevin Greenberg were identified at the NSFconference as contact personnel for evaluators. However, you should forward me whatever you get from NSF just to be sure. At this time, I am using a hard copy of the main menu and each page of the computer spreadsheet to organize required data. I have much of the data now and will have the remainder ready to submit using the electronic format in plenty of time to meet the deadline which is three months away. The core data elements (CDE) are just that - the core. They constitute a small subset of information currently contained in our existing Program Evaluation Record. Original Message From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 8:02 AM To:CLEAVER, VANESSA\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA Cc: LEASE, KATHY R.\nGLASGOW, DENNIS Subject: RE: CORE DATA ELEMENTS Let's put on our agenda what we are going to do now that Dr. Johnson is leaving. We have a major problem to get the work done to ensure a good report. Original Message From: Sent: CLEAVER, VANESSA Wednesday, January 05, 2000 4:31 PM To: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Cc: LESLEY, BONNIE\nLEASE, KATHY R.\nGLASGOW, DENNIS Subject: CORE DATA ELEMENTS I received, today, updated information on the scope and content of the CDE activity for the 1998-1999 school year. The memo states that several of the items contained in the draft version (which we received in October) have been revised. You may have also received this information. Let me know if you did not and I'll forward a copy to you. 1 26 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Sunday, April 16, 2000 12:55 PM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA RE: This Week-end Electronic dissemination is great! Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Friday, April 14, 2000 6:36 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: This Week-end Well, for #2 its back to basic summative/formative - Participation, Performance, Perceptions. I have a few ideas on #3 related to disseminating A\u0026amp;l electronically in a systematic manner as well as prepatory to planning activities. Bytes of A\u0026amp;l data as they emerge rather than in huge lumps. These bytes might be more effective if they contained an implications for practice attachment directly following A\u0026amp;l, ideally prepared by you so application in the field could occur swiftly and with the appropriate endorsement from administrative personnel. An electronic approach is very likely to read if it takes this format while print materials are easy for all to set aside. Both would be good. Given what you have sent, I will not write, just think and send helpful (hopefully) thoughts. Going home to Bob and Sophie now. See you at 2 on Sunday. Original Message From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 5:21 PM To:JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject: RE: This Week-end I just looked at my notes. He wants: 1. List of the program components-not just what we are funding from NSF, but what he called the LRSD Agenda for Mathematics and Science. 2. Description of the design to collect data on these for program evaluation. 3. Description of the procedures to feed the leadership with analysis and interpretation of data necessary for decision-making. Original Message From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Friday, April 14, 2000 6:06 PM Subject: RE: This Week-end Great! Of course we need something for now and always in this type of environment you need to evolve as you go. I have in my mental computer sketched out a brief overview of the components addressed in CPMSA program evaluation and the rationale for their inclusion (basically the 8 components (see Status Report table of contents) were identified by NSF as necessary but not sufficient). 1 I noted last night that you had a list in the Compliance Report on page 55 under formative evaluations that might be a good place to work on that on beyond necessary into sufficient territory. We do have an established record, congruent with NSF requirements, but it does not move on beyond into the area of strategic plan implementation etc. Given that this is sometimes designated turf, it can be clearly defined who and how this on beyond Component 8 evaluation is accomplished. It may be that the first segment of this would focus on summative evaluation, the necessary 8 components, (I can draft that) while the second and major focus, would be on formative evaluation (you could draft this). Is this a reasonable starting point? If it doesnt come together in a way that will influence Julio positively, we can go back to the drawing board. Original Message From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 4:42 PM To: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject: RE: This Week-end I can help you write that last piece. I'll just make up something for now. We can refine it in real life. How will that be? From\nSent: To: Subject: Original Message JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Friday, April 14, 2000 4:38 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: This Week-end I plan to work at a down town office were I have privileges and access to all equipment. Also have proof reader lined up who has worked for me for over ten years. Access to this building is just impossible. My home phone is 221- 9750 and my cell is 590-8217. If you do indeed come to the IRC to work that would be much more facilitative for me. Let me know. Probably will work both days. Want to have the Interpretation of Test Results report Julioized to reduce froth at the mouth syndrome. Sorry, this mechanism really does work to reduce the stress but it is so politically incorrect. Now my notes on the 3''*^ segment you asked me to do read major components of data, dissemination of findings to others Do you want to give me any other thoughts you had to guide me in producing what you need and had envisioned. I plan to work till 6ish. -----Original Message From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 3:09 PM To:GLASGOW, DENNIS\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject: This Week-end I am taking stuff home to work this week-end. If any of you are going to be here, call me, and I'll come here. I have my lap top at home and will periodically check e-mail from there. Or you can call me if you 2 need me. 868-4289 I have Cabinet Monday morning and a meeting all afternoon Monday with Sadie on the CLT Institute. If there is stuff that I need to review before we mail it, you HAVE to get it to me now or over the week-end. Otherwise, we have the same situation that we need to avoid-sending stuff as is because 3 27 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Monday, January 22, 2001 11:23 AM CARNINE, LESLIE V. WILLIAMS, ED\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA FW: achievement gap charts Importance: High sample_charts.doc Kathy Thought you'd want a preview of what we are getting from Dr. Nunnery, our program evaluator. Original Message From: John Nunnery [mailto:john_nunnery@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 4:05 PM To: KRLEASE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US Subject: achievement gap charts Attached is a Word file with some example achievement gap analyses based upon the Stanford 9. \"Standardized Achievement Gap\" is the effect size of the black/white difference in scale score means, disaggregated by FAR and Pay. (White Mean minus Black Mean divided by Population Standard Deviation from the norm manual. The resulting numeral can be roughly interpreted as the difference in \"years in achievement\" between black and white students. For example, a value of+1.0 means that white students, on average, perform nearly one full grade level above black students. A negative value indicates that black students outperform white students. As the example charts show, LR school district had a very large achievement gap in 1997, but by 2001 the gap was completely eliminated in math and reading for FAR students!! Modest improvement was evident for Pay students. As we discussed,the analysis for Pay students is problematic because of the wide range of incomes in the Pay category and the likelihood that White Pay students' families have higher incomes than Black Pay. These charts are very encouraging and compelling. I look forward to receiving the 7th and 10th grade data. Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com 1 28 January 24,2001 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Larry Buck, Principal Henderson Middle School 401 Barrow Road Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Mr. Buck: The first meeting of the Little Rock School District's Research Committee will be held on February 5, 2001 at 4:30 in Room ?? at the Instructional Resource Center. This committee will function to review and discuss the districts research agenda. Your participation and input are vital to the success of this committee. I look forward to seeing you at the meeting. A tentative agenda has been planned for the meeting that will allow us to establish some organizational guidelines and set up our future meeting dates. If you cannot attend, please call me at 324-2121. Sincerely, Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent 29 January 24, 2001 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ish Instructional Resource Center 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 Ct kxxz)  1 i Uta Q.cy-'v-tC' II Mr. John Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker: The first meeting of the Research Committee for the Little Rock School District will be held on Monday, February 5, 2001 at 4:30 in the Conference Room at the Administration Building. This committee will function to review and discuss the districts research agenda. We would be happy to have you or your representative observe the work of this committee. Our district is committed to improving student achievement, and this committee will work toward that goal. I look forward to seeing you at the meeting. A tentative agenda has been planned for the meeting that will allow us to establish some organizational guidelines and set up our future meeting dates. If you cannot attend, please call me at 324-2121. Sincerely, CllvtUi Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent 30 Little Rock School District Research Committee Agenda February 5, 2001 Establish Mission/Purpose Review reports and research briefs Initiate and plan new studies Focus on applying research results to decision making Board member serves as liaison to full Board Review Implementation of Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Discuss Committee Decision-Making Process Review and discussion of reports Acceptance of report by vote of committees voting members (excluding ex officio members) Confirm Committee Organization Standing agenda Review of prior meeting and unfinished business Review of new research reports Suggestions for new district research Impact of reports on the Revised Desegregation and Education plan Preparation for Board meeting Additional ideas/suggestions Assistant Superintendent for PRE organizes and facilitates meetinffs' / ) c 7^ 03 i^, 1,/^SD Ul c.^^ Jo\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_367","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Student Academic Improvement Plans (SAIPs) Using Data to Improve Individual Student Performance''","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":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Student Academic Improvement Plans (SAIPs) Using Data to Improve Individual Student Performance''"],"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/367"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\nSTUDENT ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS (SAIPs) -USING DATA TO IMPROVE INDIVIDUAL STUDENT PERFORMANCE0-1 ozo5o mm z o in Student Academic Improvement Plans (SAIPs)Using Data to Improve Individual Student Performance 1. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Memorandum to Division of Instruction staff and others, Nov. 15,1999, providing information on new requirements from the state on a personalized education plan, appointing a committee to develop a plan, and stating the committee charge Memorandum to Board of Education, Aug. 24, 2000, requesting approval of the attached administrative regulations (IHBDA-R2) and review of other information E-mail to Dennis Glasgow, Patricia Price, and Suzi Davis, Sept. 15, 2000, requesting that they develop sample SAIPs for the teachers to use ''7 Memorandum in Sept. 20, 2000, Learning Links to all principals from Bonnie Lesley stating a philosophy relating to the SAIPs Memorandum in Sept. 20, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals from Patricia Price clarifying the use of data in SAIPs and attaching sample SAIPs Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to all middle school principals from Suzi Davis providing information on SAIPs and attaching sample SAIPs Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to all middle school principals from Suzi Davis on how to use the SAIP form for parent conferencing Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to middle school principals on how to use the SAIP form for middle school mathematics, how to use the ALT data to interpret need, and including a sample SAIP E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 21, 2000, from Lillie Carter expressing appreciation for the copy of the SAIP philosophy and the sample SAIPs 10. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 27, 2000, from Eleanor Cox expressing appreciation for the SAIP philosophy and for the sample SAIPs 11. E-mail to middle school principals, Sept. 29, 2000, from Suzi Davis providing more assistance with SAIPs 12. Memorandum to Pat Price, Pat Busbea, and Ed Williams, Apr. 3, 2001, with attached document from Connecticut on interpretation of the DRA and use of that data with SAIPs1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 November 15,1999 TO: Gary Smith (or designee) Mable Donaldson Patricia Price Leon Adams Karen Broadnax Eddie McCoy Vanessa Cleaver Linda Austin Sadie Mitchell (or designee) Everett Hawks Marion Baldwin Suzi Davis I FROM: SUBJECT: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Personalized Education Plan The states ACTAAP plan states the following: An academic improvement plan means a plan that details supplemental and/or intervention and remedial instruction in deficient academic areas. One shall be developed for each student no performing at the proficient level in every portion of the criterion - referenced examinations. Our 1999-200 Work Plan includes the following priority: 9. Develop Personalized Education Plan design for K-12 students for fall 2000 implementation. Dr. Carnine has stated more than once that'he envisions a personalized Education Plan for every student - not just those who are not performing at the proficient level. I think we can learn a lot about how to think about such plans from our colleagues in special education, so Dr. Smith may wish to add one or more to the committee. We should also add Clementine Kelly and other teacher representatives, and you need to be sure to include an ODM representative, plus some parents since the students plan development must certainly include parents. Personalized Education Plan Memo November 15, 1999 Page Two I request that Gary Smith call the first meeting, and then you all decide who should chair the greater committee. Your charge includes the following: 1. Determine the full committees membership. 2. Conduct research to determine what the critical attributes will be of the LRSD Personalized Education Plan. What are other Districts doing? 3. 4. 5. 6, 7. 8. 9. Will ADE publish a model? Review Mable Donaldsons directory of Personalized Education programs to consider available options/interventions. Consider how planning of electives at the middle school level fits into the plan. Consider how planning for graduation fits into the plan. What should the Boards policy say? The regulations? Design the process/procedures/forms. Design the training/professional development. Propose the necessary budget for implementation. 10. Lay out the plan to secure the support of teachers, students, and parents. 11 .Write a handbook for teachers and a brochure for parents. All this work must be completed by the end of June, but there's lots to do - especially communication to and from teachers - so we should get started now. I request that you provide me with frequent updates on how you are doing. Also, please let me know how you want me to help. Thanks to all of you in advance for the work youll do on this challenging project. We want to create processes that ensure the effectiveness of the PEP's not just create another paperwork exercise. BAL/rcm Cc: Les Carnine Kathy Lease Junious Babbs Suellen Vann Brady Gadberry Victor Anderson Linda Watson I2 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 August 24, 2000 Board of Education ^r. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction THROUGH: Dr. Les Gamine, Superintendent, Little Rock School District SUBJECT: Student Academic Improvement Plan Act 999 of 1999 requires that schools develop student Academic Improvement Plans for all students not performing at grade level (K-4), those not proficient\" on any part of Benchmark examinations at primary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 6), and middle (grade 8) levels, and those not scoring at the \"proficient\" level on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, Algebra I, and Geometry. One of the priorities in the 1999-2000 work plan for the Division of Instruction was the development of a plan and process to comply with the mandate. Dr. Gary Smith chaired the committee (see names attached), and they involved a broader group of staff and parents in their design work. The administrative regulations (IHBDA-R2)to implement this plan are attached for the Board's review. Attachments BAL/rcm STUDENT ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN (SAIP)- DRAFT COMMITTEE - Gary Smith, Janice Wyatt-Ross, Susan Colford, Eddie McCoy, Kathy Tatum, Everett Hawks, Mable Donaldson, Pat Price, Karen Broadnax, Leon Adams, Marion Baldwin, Jim Fullerton, Jim Fullerton, Ada Keown, Gail Bradford, Vanessa Cleaver, Linda Austin, Suzi Davis, Dennis Glascow, Gloria Billingsly, Joevelyn Elston, Cassandra Norman, Mona Briggs REGULATION - Act 999 of 1999 requiring Student Academic Improvement Plan for students not performing on grade level (K-4), not proficient on any part of Benchmark (primary, intermediate, middle), students not scoring proficient on End-of-Course exams in Literacy, Geometry, Algebra OUR CHARGE - To develop a plan and procedure to meet the requirements of Act 999. Specifically\nCONSIDERATIONS___________________ 1. Determine critical attributes of a P.E.P. COMMENTS________________________ Must be skill specific. Use a pre-assessment/post-assessment process. Must be user friendly and not overburdening to teachers. Must identify deficits and develop goals with suggested strategies. 2. How do electives at middle school and graduation planning fit? Should augment strategies recommended in SAIP. 3. What should the regulations say? 4. Design a process, procedure, and forms 5. Design training and professional development 6. Determine budget See attached draft. See attached draft. See attached plan. See attached budget considerations.I TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRAINING NEED FOR TEACHERS Process and procedures of SAIP Interpretation of assessment Development of strategies RESOURCES AVAILABLE SAIP committee to train trainers to train school site teachers. _________________ Planning Research, and Evaluation staff to train trainers to train school site teachers. Curriculum specialists, Special Education teachers, GT specialists. Embed in all curriculum trainings. Include The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual (and other text resources) in schools professional libraries. Secure The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual computer version for access by teachers. Computer access to The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual and interactive WEB site for the posting and reading of strategies. Develop interactive WEB site for the posting and reading of strategies.________ Computer services to train trainers to train school site teachers in the use of software. BUDGET - APPROXIMATE ITEM SAIP forms in triplicate_ The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual - computer version COST PER ITEM .10 $36.00 $190.00 QUANTITY 20,000 One per school (52 schools) One per school (52 schools) TOTAL COST $2,000.00 $1,872.00 $9,880.00 Additional costs to be identified: Development of interactive WEB site Materials for staff development Refreshments for staff development Stipends for teachers to attend ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Parents can be informed of the process for SAIP via District wide publications, WEB site, television station, PTA meetings, etc. Parent/Teachers conferences would need to be scheduled to assure time for teachers to have assessment results available to use in SAIP. Develop processes to produce individual student printouts of assessment results on a SAIP template and/or available on disk, allowing teachers to utilize computers to create computer documents of the SAIP. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IHBDA-R2 STUDENT ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN (SAIP) In compliance with Act 999 of 1999, elementary classroom teachers and both middle and high school teachers of English language arts and mathematics will develop a Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) for each student who  is not performing on grade level (K-4)\n is not proficient on any part of the states Benchmark examinationsprimary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 6), middle (grade 8)\nand  is not scoring proficient on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, geometry, and/or algebra. Grade-level performance in grades K-2 shall be defined as performing at or above the readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment. Grade-level performance in grades 3-4 shall be defined as performing at or above the national median on the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) in reading, language, and mathematics. Schools and individual teachers are encouraged to develop plans for additional students who, in their judgment, require remediation or intervention. The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) will document a students achievement through District-adopted assessment tools, consideration of personalized education services (special education, English-as-a-Second Language, Title I, gifted programs, etc.) identification of areas of need, specific skills to improve, strategies that will be implemented (see IHBDA-R), and progress. The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) and the students progress toward grade-level or proficient performance must be shared with parents/guardians at the parent-teacher conferences that are regularly scheduled. If parents do not attend the scheduled parent-teacher conferences, alternate conference times may be scheduled or the form may be mailed. The principal must review and sign all SAIPs. The SAIP will be used to document parent-teacher conferences. Student Academic Improvement Plans are to be filed in the students permanent record folders at the end of each school year or when the student withdraws from the school. Current services -__IDEA 504 ESL T TITLEI OTHER-Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - Student: ID#: Grade: Teacher: School: Principal: Date developed: ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS __ Developmental Reading Assessment _ ALT Benchmark Exam End-of-Course-______________ AREA OF NEEDS SKILLS TO IMPROVE DATES REVIEWED Date Reviewed by: Results - (AREA) AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER STRATEGIES TO BE USED PROGRESS SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITFCnPY -TFACHFRS WORKING COPY VFI I nW COPY - PARENT r9\u0026gt; mNFFRFNrFt PINK COPY -PAR PNT ir r-riNPPR cNrcr 1 3 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, September 15, 2000 12:17 PM GLASGOW, DENNIS\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nDAVIS, SUZI SAIP I promised the principals that we would do some sample SAIPs for them. We need to get them to them right away. Please work with your staff to generate a sample for K-2. another for 3-5, then 6-8, and 9-12 in both language arts and mathematics, please. You may need to get access to the book/CD that Gary Smith disseminated so that you will be working with the same resources we asked the schools to use. Each kid does not need a unique SAIP. Teachers can identify kids with similar needs and then duplicate the form for all that set of kids. SAIPs are mandated for kids in grades k-4 who are not performing at grade level, in grade 5 (after grade 4 benchmark), grade 7 (after grade 6 benchmark), grade 9 (after grade 8 benchmark), and high school after the end-of-course tests (whichever grade level is appropriate for individual kids). SAIPs should continue for students who do not reach proficient performance in one year. Please get these samples to me asap. We need toget them out to the schools! Those parent-teacher conferences are already occurring. 1 4 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 15, 2000 All Principals Jt)r. Bonnie Lesley. Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: SAIPsSome Philosophy I Ive been thinking about our discussion about the SAIPs at the Cluster Meeting last week, and I worry that we talked too much about compliance with the law and not enough about the potential benefits to our kids. One of the things, of course, that outrages really fine educators is for legislators and other lay people to micromanage our processes. For SAIPs to be mandated is very similar to the mandate I received last week from my insurance company to take another medication rather than the one prescribed by my doctor. Both actions ARE outrageous! We also resent unfunded and time intensive demands'on usas this new requirement certainly is. So our reactions to this new law should have been totally anticipated. Now the other side: Parents, legislators, and business people also become outraged when we educators fail, in their view, to take the leadership to initiate processes that seem to them to be commonsensical, to be reasonable if we truly want to improve learning. And, indeed, SAIPs are totally reasonable and even reflective of good practice. Think for a moment about the four principles of quality management that we have embraced: customer service, data-driven decisions, continuous learning, and continuous improvement. A good faculty meeting activity might be to reflect together on the ways that SAIPs fit into those four principles. So I invite you to put aside your outrage relating to this new mandate and to think about the ways that you can exploit the mandate and use it as an opportunity to do something good. The SAIP process has the potential to: prevent student failure improve academic performance of individual students improve students self-concept and their perceptions of school and education reduce the dropout rate educate and involve parents provide a focus for professional development I SAIPsSome Philosophy - Memo September 15, 2000 Page Two  improve instructional practices  start a dialogue among teachers on effective interventions  provide a focus for budget prioritization  inform the design of the Title I and School Improvement Plan  create a commitment to develop a SAIP for all students  etc., etc., etc. Now none of these good things will happen if we see the SAIP only as an exercise in paperwork, if we see it as an event that we have to get through and then file the documentation, if we only comply with the letter of the law. I hope you will all use the SAIPs in ways that serve children well, as additional sets of data to guide decision-making in the school, and as opportunities for reflective dialogue with parents and students about improved academic performance. Use them, in other words, as a quality management tool. Please let us know if we can assist you. BAL/adg 5 LL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EARLY CHILDHOOD/ELEMENTARY LITERACY DEPARTMENT 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 Sqjtember 18, 2000 To: Elementary Principals From: Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood/Elementary Literacy Subject: Information regarding SAIP (Student Academic Improvement Plan) for Reading K-5 Please be sure to use the following data when filling out the Assessment Results on the SAIP: Developmental Reading Assessment  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out only for Kindergarten children who are retained. If a student is retained in Kindergarten their score on the Spring DRA should be below a 2.  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out for any First Grade student who scored below a 2 on the Spring Kindergarten DRA.  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out for any Second Grade student who scored below a 16 on the Spring First Grade DRA.  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out for any Third Grade student who scored below a 24 on the Spring Second Grade DRA. Achievement Level Test  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out for any Fourth Grade student who scored below a 198 RTT score in Reading on the 3\"* Grade Spring ALT.  A Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) should be filled out for any Fifth Grade student who scored below a 205 RTF score in Reading on the 4*** Grade Spring ALT. In addition, any student who scored Basic or Below Basic on the 4* Grade Benchmark Exam in Reading, must have a Student Academic Improvement Plan. Current services -IDEA 504 ESL G/T TITLEI X Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#: 100100 School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr. Morgan Grade: Kindergarten ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS X Developmentil Reading Assessment _ ALT __ Benchmark Exam End-of-Course________________ AREA OF NEEDS Letter/sound association (AREA) Results\nKindergarten Spring results DRA Level A Recognition of upper and lower case letters Recognizing rhyming words Constructing and writing words Concepts about print STRATEGIES TO BE USED The teacher will model and instruct the student in how to: Hear and record sounds in words through interactive writing Develop concepts about print, letter and Word recognition, and rhyming patterns through shared reading Develop the use of meaning structure and visual cues through shared reading The parent will: Listen to the child read Read to the child Discuss reading and writing assignments with child SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT f WHITE COPY - TEACHER'S WORKING COPY Teacher: Ms. Jones Date developed\n10/4/00 SKILLS TO IMPROVE Phonemic awareness Letter recognition Using letter sound knowledge in writing Directionality One - to - one matching Date 10/4/00 10/4/00 DATES REVIEWED Reviewed by\nMs, Jones - Teacher Mrs. Smith - Parent AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER PROGRESS STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) YELLOW COPY - PARENT (2\" CONFERENqE) T PRINCIPAL PINK COPY - PARENT (l\" CONFERENCE) Current services - IDEA 50 ESL G/T TITLEI X Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#\n100100 Grade: 1st School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr. Morgan ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS X Developmental Reading Assessment . ALT __ Benchmark Exam End-of-Course________________ Results: (AREA) Kindergarten Spring results DRA Level A First Grade Fall results DRA Level 1 AREA OF NEEDS Letter/sound association Letter recognition Use of meaning, structure \u0026amp; visual cues in reading. Constructing \u0026amp; writing sentences Teacher\nMs. Jones Date developed: 10/4/00 SKILLS TO IMPROVE Independent writing Independent reading Writing vocabulary DATES REVIEWED Date I Reviewed by: 10/4^0 Ms. Jones - Teacher 10/4/00 Mrs. Smith - Parent AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER STRATEGIES TO BE USED PROGRESS The teacher will model and instruct the student in how to: Hear \u0026amp; record sounds in words through interactive writing Use meaning visual and structure cues through guided reading Provide literacy centers to reinforce letter identification, letter sound association and writing vocabulary The parent will: Listen to the child read Read to the child Discuss reading and writing assignments with child SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHER'S WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY - PARENT t:* CONFERENCE) PINKCOPY -PARNT(lCONFERNCE) Current services - IDEA 504 ESL G/T TITLEI X Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#: 100100 Grade: 2nd School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr, Morgan ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS X Devclopmenlil Reading Assessment _ ALT __ Benchmark Exam EDd-or-Courie________________ AREA OF NEEDS Vocabulary (AREA) Spelling pattom Results: Comprehension 1\" grade Spring results DRA Level 12 Spelling \u0026amp; writing development 2\"* grade Fall results DRA Level 14 Use of structure, meaning \u0026amp; visual cues when Reading STRATEGIES TO BE USED The teacher will model and instruct the student in bow to: Use known spelling patterns to spell and read new words Cross check meaning, structure, and visual cues in reading Use the writing process (edit and revise writing) The parent will\nListen to the child read Read to the child Discuss reading and writing assignments with child Teacher: Ms. Jones Date developed: 10/4/00 SKILLS TO IMPROVE Independent Writing Independent Reading Reading for Information I Date 10/4/00 10/4/00 DATES REVIEWED Reviewed by: Ms. Jones - Teacher Mrs. Smith - Parent AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER PROGRESS I I SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHER'S WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY - PARENT (2\" CONFERENCE) PtNKCOPY . PARENT (I\" CONFERENCE) Current services -IDEA 50 ESL G/T TITLEI X Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#: 100100 Grade: 3\"* Grade School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr. Morgan ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS X Dcveiopmeotal Readiag Asseumeol _ ALT __ Beacbmark Exam End-of-Courae_____________ AREA OF NEEDS Teacher: Ms. Jones Date developed: 10/4/00 SKILLS TO IMPROVE DATES REVIEWED (AREA) Comprehension: Predicting Making inferences Reading for information Reading Comprehension Process Writing Date 10/4/00 Results: Second grade Spring DRA Level 14 Development of Spelling patterns for Reading and Writing Spelling Development Vocabulary Development 10/4/00 Reviewed by: Ms. Jones - Teacher Mrs. Smith - Parent Writing: Revising Editing STRATEGIES TO BE USED AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER PROGRESS The teacher will model and instruct the student in bow to: Use comprehension strategies to make meaning through guided reading, read alouds, and literature circles Use writing process to write narrative and expository texts, expand vocabulary and develop spelling The parent will: Listen to the child read Read to the child Discuss reading and writing assignments with child SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHERS WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY - PARENT (2 CONFERENCE) PINK.COPY -PARNT(l^CONFERENCE) I I I Current services -IDEA 504 ESL G/T TITLE I X Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#: 100100 Grade: 4th Teacher\nMs. Jones School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr. Morgan ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS __ Developmental Reading Assessment X ALT __ Benchmark Exam Eod'Of'Course_____________ AREA OF NEEDS Reading Comprehension: (AREA) Reading for meaning - fiction and non fiction text Results\nReading nanative and expository Date developed: 10/4/00________ SKILLS TO IMPROVE Reading: Monitor comprehension and use fix up strategies Writing: 10/4/00 10/4/00 DATES REVIEWED I Reviewed by: Ms. Jones - Teach Mrs. Smith - Parent Third Grade Spring results ALT - RIT score 190 Write paragraph with topic sentence supporting details Organize paragraphs to develop cohesive text AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER I pate., STRATEGIES TO BE USED PROGRESS The teacher will model and instruct the student in bow to: Model comprehension strategies through \"think alouds\", self-correct, reread, read on, self question, and summarize Use student conferences to discuss revisions/editing The parent will: Continue to read to and with child Discuss and work with child in various subject areas Encourage child to read-for \" SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHERS WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY - PARENT (2* CONFERENCE) PINK COPY - PARENT (1\" CONFERENCE) .a Bnsse-c I Current services -__IDEA Little Rock School District - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year - 2000-2001 Student: Tiffany Smith ID#: 100100 Grade: Sth G/T TITLEI X School: Main Street Elementary Principal: Mr. Morgan ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS __ Developmental Reading Assessment X ALT __ Benchmark Exam End-of-Course_____________ AREA OF NEEDS Reading Comprehension: (AREA) Reading for purpose Results: Use personal background to comprehend 4 th grade Benchmark Exam (ACTAAP) Reading - Below Basic 4'*' grade Spring ALT - RIT score 200 The teacher will: Read functional text Writing: Writing Process STRATEGIES TO BE USED Use activities to establish prior learning/predict new learning Have students read for a variety of purposes Conference student on writing to prompts/using writing process The parent will: Continue to read to and with child Discuss and work with child in various subject areas Encourage child to read-for' SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT Teacher: Ms. Jones Date developed: 10/4/00 SKILLS TO IMPROVE Reading Comprehension: Read and discuss inferential information Evaluate new information by Comparing Writing: Revise and edit writing for . content/mechanics I STUDENT,(IF APPLICABLE) DATES REVIEWED Date 10/4/00 10/4/00 Reviewed by: Ms. Jones - Teacher Mrs. Smith - Parent AT END OF YEAR - FILE IN PERMANENT RECORD FOLDER PROGRESS I I I PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHER'S WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY^.Pjii^^(^ - .ri'\"'* ' 5\" \\ v'jXs 6 LL ft. Secondary English/Foreign Languages Instructional Resource Center 3001 South Pulaski, Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone (501) 324-0510, 324-0513 Fax (501) 324-0504 To: From: Date: All Middle School Principals Suzi Davis September 21, 2000 Attached you will find the sample SAIP form for middle school reading, language arts, writing. Please read below carefully to understand the form and how to fill one out. Assessments Used: 6* grade\n5* grade spring ALT Cut off RIT scores\nReading= 211, Language= 212 7* grade\n6* grade spring ALT Cut off RIT scores: Reading=215, Language-216 6\"' grade spring State Benchmark Test For Basic and Below Basic scores 8* grade: V'*\" grade spring ALT Cut off RIT scores\nReading=220, Language-219 There^^e four areas or goal areas listed by the NWEA for ALT Reading tests, and three ^eas for ALT Language (which include writing skills). Under each of these goal areas are L- -- -------- ________ ran hp. determined which skills in which areas are weak. On the sample, which is a listed several skills. From the report of each child, it can be determined which skills in which areas are . 1 __ til____x1-KAaori' s^ple for reading SAIP only, you will see that in area one. Word Meanings, this student showed weakness skills co A -c were co skills in Uus firs, area wbreh need address.Sl* meanings. In the second area. Interpretive Comprehension, cre were also two remediations needed\none in Snee, and one in authors purpose. A third area and its skill are also listed, but since there is no mention of the fourth area (Literal Comprehension), we know that this child performed satisfactonly m that area and On SAIP, if necessary, a childs language needs and writing needs could be ad^essed. In the future when State Benchmark scores are available, a seventh graders SAIP should also reflect any needs identified by the sixth grade State Benchmark test. Strategies To Be Used: ., , . It has been suggested as a more efficient way of dealmg with this area. that a checklist could be made for skills with the specific needs checked off for each child and this checklist attached to the S^P^It ^uld tSe a team effort to prepare the initial checklist, but after the work is done once it would save time. This SAIP should be available for parent conferences. Progress: This area should reflect data to indicate student is practicing and acquiring skills needed. Notations should be added as the school year progresses. 1 5AmPlc Little Rock School District - Student\nTiffany Smith Cunenl services - _ IDEA 504 ___ESL _ G/T TITLE 1 X OTHER - Academic Improvement Plan for Student - School year ID#: 100100 Grade: 6th -^2000-2001 Teacher\nR. Martin School: Hogwarts Middle School Principal: Dumbledorf Date developed: 10/4/00 ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS Developnieiitl Reading Assessment X ALT Benctiinark Exam End-of-Course _------------------ I area OF NEEDS 1. Word Meanings 1. (AREA) 2. Interpretive Comprehension 2. Results: 3. Evaluative Comprehension SKILLS TO IMPROVE Context Clues Multiple Meanings Inference Authors Purpose Date: 10-1-00 10-1-00 DATES REVIEWED Reviewed by\nR. Martin, teacher B. Spears, parent 5i'* grade Spring ALT Reading RIT - 208 strategies to be USED rVrTviSrpmctke in predicting word meaning and identifying clues in context Provide students with word lists having multiple meanings and practice different context and meanings. . 2. Use short passages to practice inference and drawing conclusions when formation is not given. Teach purposes of literature and provide practice in identifying the purposes in several forms and identifying fact^ias. 3 Teach meaning and purpose c.----------- . Teach meaning of stereotypes and identify examples with studen . The parent will: 1. Read aloud to child and listen to child read aloud, noting words child has 2 child in all subject areas and the meaning of 3. Sse television and magazine advertisements to show bias and purpose of presented 3 material. Encourage the child to read for pleasure! SIGNATURES - TEACHER PARENT 3. Identify bias, stereotypes PROGRESS STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL WHITE COPY - TEACHERS WORKING COPY YELLOW COPY - PARENT (2\" CONFERENCE) PINK COPY - PARENT (1^^ CONFERENCE) ] Little Rock Public Schools Reading Achievement Level Test Goals 1. Word Meaning a. b. c. d. e. Phonetic skills Context clues Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms Component structure (prefix, suffix, origin, roots Multiple meanings 2. Literal Comprehension a. Recall/identify significant details b. c. d. e. Identify main idea Locate information Follow directions Sequence details 3. Interpretive Comprehension a. b. c. d. e. f. Inference Identify cause and effect Authors purpose Prediction Summarize Identify literary elements (character, plot, setting, theme, etc.) 4. Evaluative Comprehension a. b. c. d. e. Evaluate conclusions, validity (supporting context) Identify fact and opinion Identify literary techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) Distinguish text forms Identify bias, stereotypes Little Rock School District Language Usage Achievement Level Test Goals 1. Writing Process a. Prewriting skills b. c. d. e. f. Drafting and revising Editing/proofreading Choosing appropriate format Sentence choice appropriate to purpose Paragraph skills (topic and concluding sentences, indenting, etc.) 2. Grammar and Usage a. b. c. d. e. f. g-h. i. Sentence patterns Phrases and clauses Noun forms Verb usage: tenses, irregular verbs, subject-verb agreement Adjective forms Adverb forms Pronoun forms Pronoun antecedent agreement Negative forms 3. Mechanics a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. End punctuation Commas Apostrophes Enclosing punctuation Titles Beginning Capitalization Proper nouns and adjectives Capital I I ! I 7I LL Secondary English, Foreign Languages I I f 5 Memo To: From\nCC\nDate: Re: Middle School Principals ^Suzi Davis September 26,2000 Parent Conferences for SAIP Attached you will find a copy of the information regarding use of the SAIP form for parent conferencing. Please note the part about mailing home the SAIP if the parent is unable to attend a conference or sign the form. I thought the information included in this page was important and might be helpful to you. Please let me know if there is more that you need.  Page 1**4 , Ji / background - Act 999 of 1999 requires LRSD to develop a Student Academic ImnrtJ^lTpian for students not performing on grade level (K-4), not proficient ow XXXark (primary, intermediate, middle), ^d students ~ proficient on Cv XiXA*** J ) 7 f' Al K End-of-Course exams in Literacy, Geometry, Algebra PROCESS, PROCEDURE, AND FORM - DRAFT A Student Achievement Improvement Plan will be developed/revised for students who are not proficient according to the results of\n. Observation Surveys (Grades K-Z\"-*) conducted in September and April, . Achievement Level Tests (Grades 3\"*-11*) conducted m August/September and . EnTo^f Course Exams (Algebra I, Geometry, Literacy) conducted in May, and _1_______1, i-n AAoV th 4' Quarter Benchmark Exams (3'^ -8') in May. The SAIP will document the consideration of cutreut personalized services (apecial Xato English as a Second Language, Title I, Gifted programs etc.) f areas of need, specific skills to improve, strategies that will be implemented. progress. The SAIP conferences in will be reviewed/revised with parents at scheduled in the Fall and Spring. The parent, teacher, and student (if applicable) will ies for the home and school, and discuss which area of needs will be addressed, sriategies The principal, or desi^ee will review and si^ dl  P review progress. . _ are unable to attend the Parent Teacher Conference, a copy of the SAIP will be mailed to them. X form is to be used in heu of current Parent Teacher Conference form. The SAIP will be kept in the classroom during the school year as a working copy for the Al_ _ 0 A IIJ teacher. At the end of the school year. or if the student exits the school, the SAIP would SS iXXts permaneni record folder for review by fiiture teachers. ) I I Snecific strategies will be developed by the teacher, parent, and student (if applicable). IrXST^tegiescancom^ftomavari^ofs^^^^ knowledge and experience, student team meetmgs, or r.  sessions. Some of the sources recommended are\nschool generated problem-solving . The Pre-Referral Intervention Manual by McCamey, Wunderlich \u0026amp; Bauer Second Edition, (see attached cover, index, and sample page) Cost - $36.00 Manual, $190.00 Computer version. District created interactive WEB site for posting and locating strategies that can  S XsXstatf members. This would neeb to be developed. Cost unknown. . Imbed into all curricular suff development training specific strategies to address areas of need that are assessed. 1 s8 TO. FROM. LL little rock school district INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 27, 2000 middle school PRINCIPALS I^ENNIS GLASGOW. DIRECTOR OF MATH AND SCIENCE SUBJECT: SAIP Form The SAIP form for middle school mathematics will follow the same format as the iwuauw Tii\u0026gt; will find the sample SAIP form for middle readinq/language arts. Attached you will find the samples oMir ____and the areas and skills listed for the ALT. school mathematics and the areas Below you will find the cut off RIT scores for mathematics\n1 I 6' grade\n7 grade\ns grade\n5\"* grade spring ALT 6* grade spring ALT 7 grade spring ALT Cut off RIT scores\nMath = 215 Cut off RIT scores\nMath = 220 Cut off RIT scores\nMath = 227 I) Little Rock School District Mathematics Achievement Level Test Goals 1. Operations a. Whole number computation b. Fraction, decimal, mixed number percents computation c. Computation with positive and negative numbers d. Estimation and rounding e. Applications 2. Number Sense and Properties a. Identify numerical patterns b. Counting and recognition, odd-even, grouping c. Place value, expanded notation d. Powers of ten, factoring, prime numbers, multiples e. Exponents, squares, scientific notation, roots f. Whole and fractional concepts g. Number lines, coordinate graphs h. Applications I 3. Geometry and Spatial Sense i S Identify, describe, classify shapes, figures, and objects b. Classify and measure angles and triangles, Pythagorean Theorem c. Line segments, lines, rays, relationships (perpendicular, parallel, intersecting, etc.) d. Congruence, symmetry, translations (flips, slides, rotations) a. e. Circles (circumference, diameter, radius) f. Coordinates, ordered pairs O' Applications 4. Measurement I I a. b. Linear measurement Measure/estimate perimeter, area, mass, volume in standard and non-standard measures c. Time, rate, speed, ratio, scale d. Weight, temperature e. Units of money f. Conversion within a system g- Compare or convert between systems h. Applications 5. Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability a. Analyze, interpret data displays b. Probability and prediction c. Measures of central tendency and distribution d. Applications 6. Patterns, Algebra and Functions Equations, variables, expressions b. Equalities and inequalities (=,\u0026gt;,\u0026lt;) a. c. Patterns and functions d. Applications Current services -__IDEA  504 ------ U/l iiiLbi AuinnK.- Little Rock School District - Grad^*^**^h Teacher\nR. Martin Student\nTiffany Smith ED #\n100100 School: Hogwarts Middle School Principal: Dumbledorf Date developed\n10/4/00 ASSESSMENT/ RESULTS _ DevetopmenUl Rudins Asseument X ALT __ Benchmark Eim End-of-Coune________________ /JtEA OF NEEDS SKBXS TO IMPROVE ni\\TES reviewed (AREA) I, Operations 2. Number Sense and Properties 1. Whole number computation Estimation and rounding Date\nReviewed by: Results\n3. Geometry and Spatial Sense 2. Identify numerical patterns Whole and fractional concepts 10-1- 00 10 -1-00 R. Martin, teacher R. Snears, parent 5i'* grade Spring ATT Mathematics RIT - 3. Circles (circumference, diameter, radius) 208 STRATEGIES TO BE USED ^ctiK in whole number computation using a variety of resources including practice sheets, games and computer software^ resources including 2 Provide pracUce in estimation and rounding usmg a variety reso practice s.h eets, gam__e_s_ _a_n_d1 computer CsAoffttwwfalTreC. 3 Develop alternative algorithms for computation. 4 5. Use concrete activities to attributes of circles. and progress The parent will\n1. Practice computation. 2. Discuss material read with child in in mathematics and the meaning of material. 3. 4. Provide opportunities to Use television and magazine advertisements to estimation skills (i.c.. shopping) ..ccH in show mathematical concepts used in real life. Encourage the child to have a positive attitude about problem solving! SIGNATURES - TEACHER parent STUDENT (IF APPLICABLE) PRINCIPAL TC acmpdo tvAoviKin rODV VT?T T rk/ /^ov DA Dwxrr r-** Drxtv rnDV DA D cxrr dp 9LESLEY, BONNIE From: lent: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, September 27, 2000 6:28 PM CARTER, LILLIE RE: SAIP Thanks so much for this nice feedback, Lillie. And thanks for being our victim principal today. You're a great sport. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: CARTER\u0026gt;ltriE ) Thursd^September 21, 2000, LESLEvSOMMlS------ SAIP If52 PM Dr. Lesley, I just finished reading this week's Learning Links. Thank you so much for sharing your philosophy and for sending sample copies of the SAIP. Many years ago, we had to write a plan for students who did not pass the Arkansas M.P.T. (Minimum Performance Test). I know that you are very busy. I just wanted you to know how much I appreciate what you do for our district on a daily basis. This will be shared with my staff during grade-level meetings on Monday and Tuesday of next week. Lillie Carter 1 10 LESLEY, BONNIE From: bSent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY. BONNIE Wednesday, September 27, 2000 6:22 PM COX, ELEANOR PRICE. PATRICIA RE: SAIP'S Thanks so much for this feedback, Eleanor. I will pass it along to Pat as well. We appreciate your taking the time. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: cox, ELEANOR Friday, September 22, 2000 3:11 PM LESLEY, BONNIE SAIP'S I really appreciate your comments in the \"Learning Links\" regarding the SAIP mandate. I do not understand all the complaints or \"disasterizing\" as I call it. This is not anything new. The incentive schools have done this for years. I initiated a practice similar to this at every school I have been principal except Baseline. It does work and helps to keep teachers focused on what needs to be taught and how to use the benchmarks to accomplish these goals. I personally am thrilled about the process, and like you, outraged with the mandate. But, we ae living in different times and we have to go with the flow or find employment elsewhere. Tell Pat thanks for the examples of the SAIP's. Good move for us visual learner (Smile). 1 11LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent\nTo: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, September 29, 2000 12:43 PM DAVIS, SUZI RE: More SAIP help I'm free now. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: DAVIS, SUZI Friday, September 29, 2000 11:25 AM LESLEY, BONNIE FW: More SAIP help Maybe this has calmed the storm a little bit for Nancy. We have talked and I will go there next week and get them on task with SAIP. The testing problem I cannot help with much, but I perhaps can give them something. Meantime, I will be here all day as Jim Fullerton has moved me to Monday. So let me know when we can visit. Especially before you get out of here. Who is going with you to see \"Grapes\"? Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: ROUSSEAU, NANCY Friday, September 29, 2000 10:59 AM DAVIS, SUZI RE: More SAIP help I am copying this and distributing it to all of my wonderful English teachers. Thank you, Suzi, for all that you do for the LRSD and my English teachers. You are a most competent, wonderful professional. We thank you here at PHMS -  -----Original Message----- From: DAVIS, SUZI Sent: To: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:43 AM BUCK, LARRY\nBLAYLOCK, ANN\nFULLERTON, JIM\nMOSBY, JIMMY\nBERRY, DEBORAH\nPATTERSON, DAVID\nROUSSEAU, NANCY\nHUDSON, ELOUISE Subject: More SAIP help I will send you by email later this morning a checklist with strategies listed for ail the areas of the ALT tests, reading and language, that teachers can simply check the ones that apply to each student not proficient, and then staple to the SAIP form. It should make teachers' lives quite a bit simpler when filling these things out. I know it won't be a perfect list of strategies, but I wanted to do something to help as soon as possible. Look for it later this morning. 1 12 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 April 3, 2001 TO: FROM: Pat Price Pat Busbea Dr. Ed Williams ^r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: DRA Please read the attached document carefully. Think about our own procedures, levels of readiness, SAIP requirements, etc. Lets meet to discuss Friday, April 6, at 1:30 in my office. Thanks! I BAL/adg Attachments I Connecticut State Department of Education An Act Concerning Educational Accountability Q\u0026amp;A  Use of the Developmental Reading Assessment  All Students Grades 1-3  Special Education Students  Bilingual Education Students  Additional Support for 4^*\" Grade Students Scoring Below Intervention Level on CMT 1. How is the DRA used to meet the requirements of Public Act 99-288, An Act Concerning Educational Accountability? Public Act 99-288, An Act Concerning Educational Accountability, states that for each school year commencing on or after July 1, 1999, each local and regional board of education for a priority school district shall require the schools under its jurisdiction to evaluate the reading level of students enrolled in grades one through three, inclusive, in the middle of the school year and at the end of the school year. The legislation further states, a student shall be determined to be substantially deficient in reading based on measures set by the State Board of Education.\" On 12/1/99 the State Board of Education adopted the Developmental Reading Assessment [DRA] as the approved standardized assessment for identifying which students are substantially deficient in reading and in need of additional support for students in grades 1-3. 2. When mu^ the DRA be given as required by state legislation and which texts should be used for the assessment? To fulfill the legislative requirement the state-approved DRA must be administered twice a year to all students in grades 1-3. Based on previous assessments and the judgment of the teacher, the appropriate level text should be used for the assessment. If the student has met the standard on the state identified text or on texts beyond that level, the student will not be identified as substantially deficient in reading. If the student is not able to meet the standard on the state identified text or they can only be assessed on texts below the state identified text, they would be identified as substantially deficient in reading. 1Mid-year, priority school districts must select a four-week period in January-February in which to do the testing. At the end of the year, priority school districts must test during the last week in April and the first three weeks of May. 3. What are the levels at which a student will be considered substantially deficient? The following table provides the DRA substantially deficient standard level information. In order for a student to be considered beyond the substantially deficient level, s/he would have to achieve both of the following standards:  The student would have to read the appropriate text with 95%-100% accuracy\nand  The student would have to receive a score of 3 or 4 on a 4-point rubric assessing the student's ability to comprehend and retell a story Grade Level 1 Mid-Year Level Level 6 Why Are We Stopping Level 14 The Wagon End of Year Level Level 10 Shoe Boxes\" Level 16 The Pot of Gold\" Level 20 \u0026lt;Green Freddie\" Level 24 The Wonderful Day 2 3 4. How often can the DRA be used to assess students? The use of the DRA Kit should be limited for use in classrooms for the following-reasons\n to determine base-line reading levels\n for new students\n for mid-year and end-of-the year state-mandated assessments\nand  to determine a satisfactory level of progress in reading for students for whom a reading intervention has been provided. The state-approved DRA should not be used to practice for future state-mandated assessments. District and school personnel are responsible to ensure that appropriate materials are provided for classroom teachers to continue on-going assessments throughout the school year. Alternate titles have been developed by the publisher of the Developmental Reading Assessment and may be used for on-going assessments. However, these alternate DRA texts at the substantially deficient standard\" levels are not to be used for the state-mandated formal assessment at mid-year or at the end-of-the year. 2 The Developmental Reading Assessment was intended for use with students in grades K-3. It may also be used appropriately to assess students who are performing below expected reading levels in fourth grade. Assessments using the DRA should not take place with more frequency than a six-week interval. The state approved DRA should be used only for the purposes addressed in paragraph 1. Efforts should be made to keep the state approved DRA in a central location in the school and available to classroom teachers and personnel as needed for those stated purposes. 5. What services are required to be provided if a student scores below the substantially deficient level on the state approved DRA? The legislation requires that if a student is found to be substantially deficient in reading based on: 1. 2. 6. the middle of the year evaluation  the school shall notify the parents or guardians of the student of such result.\" 'A District and school personnel should develop a letter to inform the students family about the students performance including the schools plan(s) for intervention and suggestions on what the family could do to assist the child Additionally we recommend that districts should: Develop a personal (individual) reading plan that outlines additional instructional support and monitors student progress. This instructional support may include but not necessarily be limited to tutoring, after school support, Saturday Academies as well as explicit instruction in small-groups. the end of the year evaluation  the school shall develop a personal reading plan for each student. The personal reading plan shall include measures to improve the students reading level, such as tutoring, a transitional class, or a summer reading program ... and shall be maintained until the student achieves a satisfactory level of progress. If a student scores at or above the substantially deficient level does that mean the student is a competent independent reader? No. If the student has scored at the substantially deficient level, the student still requires a great deal of instruction to become a competent independent reader. The score only implies that the student needs intervention in reading. 7. Will bilingual students be assessed using the state approved DRA? I Yes. The legislation states that all students in the priority school districts in grades one through three, inclusive, must be assessed. This has been interpreted to mean that students in bilingual prograrhs will be assessed for their ability to read in English, as measured by the state approved DRA. Only after the English version of the state-approved DRA has been administered, the 3 Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) recommends that Spanish speaking students in bilingual programs be assessed for their ability to read and comprehend in Spanish using the Spanish version of the DRA, Evaluacidn del Desarrollo de la Lecture (EDL). The use of the EDL will allow teachers of bilingual students to plan instruction based on ongoing assessment. 8. How is the DRA also used to fulfill the P.A. 99-211, An Act Improving Bilingual Education, requirement for the annual assessment of academic progress for students in bilingual programs? To be eligible to exit a bilingual program or stop receiving bilingual support, a student in Grades K, 1,2 and 3 must meet the grade level standard on the DRA, in addition to meeting a linguistic standard (third grade students also have to score above the inten/ention level on the CMT). DRA Grade Level Standard K 1 2 3 Level 2 Level 16 Level 28 Level 38 I Can See The Pot of Gold You Dont Look Beautiful to Me Trouble at the Beaver Pond 9. When is the DRA administered to meet the requirements to annually assess students In bilingual programs? The results of the spring DRA assessment (last week in April through third week in May) can also be used to fulfill the assessment requirements for bilingual students. 10. If a student in a bilingual program is identified as substantially deficient in reading and the individual reading plan identifies the need for summer school, must the summer school instruction be provided in the students native language? Yes, if the individual reading plan indicates the need for continued literacy development in the students native language. 11. What is the districts obligation to include measures to improve special education students reading level, such as tutoring, transitional classes, after school and summer school when the student scores below the substantially deficient level? 4The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that public agencies ...ensure that its children with disabilities have available to them the variety of educational programs and services available to non-disabled children in the area served by the agency... As such special education students who are substantially deficient on the state approved DRA must have the same access to measures to improve student learning as regular education students who also scored in the substantially-deficient range. 12.Will students in special education be assessed using the state approved DRA? Yes. ALL special education students in an academic program (1-3) should be assessed with all other students, and if they are not making sufficient progress towards learning to read they should have access to the extra help provided. As such, only severely cognitively impaired students in grades 1-3 who are participating in a functionally based program, which does not include reading should not participate. The Individual Educational Plans (lEPs) of students in this latter group should reflect how they would be assessed on appropriate developmental communication skills. Students who have not been tested using the state approved DRA should not be included in the number of students who are found to be substantially deficient in reading. 13. Do special education students with lEPs need a Personai/lndividual Reading Plan? Yes, every student who has been identified as substantially deficient\" on the state-approved DRA must have a Personai/lndividual Reading Plan. School teams should review the lEPs of special education students who score in the substantially deficient range on the state-approved DRA. Appropriate components of the lEP may be copied and included in the students Personai/lndividual Reading Plan to ensure that the student has a comprehensive and coordinated reading program, with appropriate interventions in place. 14. Who should administer the state-approved DRA7 The classroom teacher is responsible for the administration of the state-approved DRA to all regular education students and bilingual education students. In the case of special education students, the teacher who has primary responsibility for planning and implementing the reading instruction program should administer the state-approved DRA. 5 15. What is the official state-approved DRA retelling rubric and what are the directions? DRA Retelling Rubric Teacher: start at the beginning and tell me in your own words what happened in the story. Teachier may add (ohl^ once)\nTell me more. Important note: No other prompts (questions) may be given to the student prior to scoring the students retelling. Assessors notes should reflect what the child tells the teacher. The assessor should use the story overview to underline phrases and words and to write pertinent words and phrases that the student uses- JPASS (score 3 or 4) ir' . . .\u0026lt;  -  U'.f i.'.zyrv,. V?, h. 4 Retelling reflects very good comprehension:  Captures the essence of the story or information  Sequential: includes important events/facts  Includes important information about the characters and setting  Refers to characters and places by name  Reveals use of background knowledge to interpret 3 Retelling reflects adequate comprehension:  Relates the gist of the story or information  Sequential for the most part: 1 or 2 events/facts may be omitted  Includes some information about the characters and setting  Refers to most characters by name  Literal interpretation FAIL? (score 2 or 1)1. w 2 Retelling reflects some comprehension:  Relates pieces of the story or information  Some events/facts omitted or out of sequence  Mentions most of the characters  Refers to 1 or 2 characters by name  Some misinterpretation 1 Retelling reflects very little comprehension:  Focuses on a limited part of the story or information  Only 1 or 2 events/facts mentioned  Some characters omitted  Refers to characters in common terms (boy, girl, dog, he, she)  Misinterpretation or incorrect information 16. Will the current state-approved rubric and standards be revised as a result of changes in Joetta Beavers newly published DRA? 6 After two years of use, we will re-examine the standards in light of our state results and in light of Joetta Beaver's changes. For the 2000-2001 academic year, these will be NO CHANGES. 17. What are the requirements for providing additional instruction to students in priority school districts who scored below the intervention level on the 4**^ grade CMT tests during the 2000-2001 school year? According to PA 99-288, the additional instruction should be geared to addressing the students' deficiencies and may include tutoring, after school or school vacation programs or weekend school programs. The additional instruction should be provided as soon as possible after the CMT student results are released. The Principal may waive the additional instruction based on the recommendation of the classroom teacher with documentation that the student has demonstrated significant growth in the subject tested and would not benefit from additional instruction. 18. If students scored below the intervention (remedial) level on more than one test, what is the priority for providing additional instruction? Since this is the first year of the requirement, priority should be given to providing additional instruction to students during the school year who scored below the intervention level in reading. If resources are available within the district, a comprehensive program of additional instruction should be provided to students who scored below the intervention level in writing and/or mathematics. 19. What are the summer school requirements for 4'* grade students in priority school districts who scored below the intervention level on the 4**^ grade CMT tests during the 2000-2001 school year? Again, priority should be given to students who scored below the intervention level in reading. These students are expected to attend summer school unless they are exempt by the Superintendent. Exemption from summer school may mean that there is supporting evidence to indicate that a student is performing above the intervention level. Decisions for exempting students from summer school should be made using only standardized procedures and assessment data established at the district level. It is recommended that additional student assessment data to document that progress in reading be obtained through the use of the school secure Reading Comprehension test of the CMT, the DRP, Level 40 {Old Ben Bailey Meets His Match) of the state approved DRA, local district assessments or other standardized reading tests. 20. What if summer school is offered to those students in priority school districts for whom an exemption is not recommended and they do not attend summer school? I Any student who scored below the intervention level on the reading 4* grade CMT in 2000-2001, who was not exempt from summer school and did not attend, shall not be promoted to 5'* grade. 7Where do I have information or questions answered? Name Organization Phone No. DRA Questions Linda Kauffmann CSDE 860-566-3135 Office of Priority Schools/ Implementation of DRA Barbara Beaudin CSDE 860-566-4306 DRA and accountability evaluation model Kristina Eiias^taron CSDE 860-566-1103 LA Consultant/Curriculum questions Nancy Stark CSDE 860-804-2021 Special Ed LA Consultant/Speciai Ed curriculum questions John Frolich Celebration Press/Pearson Learning 914-925-0346 FAX 914-925-0347 vm\n800-435-3499 ext. 12021 Ordering Information H:\\DRA MemostDRA - Q and A Revisions 01 -09-01 .doc 8 Curriculum Mapping (Examples) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Dec. 3, 1998, with agenda for Dec. 9 meeting\nincludes reports on District-Level Curriculum Maps Memorandum to Mona Briggs, July 16, 1999, with copy of a training notebook on curriculum mapping and with charge to put together a training program on curriculum mapping Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Aug. 30, 1999, with agenda for Sept. 1 meeting\nincludes discussion led by Mona Briggs and Eddie McCoy on Curriculum Mapping Project Memorandum in Nov. 9, 1999, Learning Links providing information on curriculum mapping with attached article Memorandum in Nov. 17, 1999, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping training Memorandum in Dec. 1,1999, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping Memorandum in Jan. 12, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping E-mail to Mona Briggs, Eddie McCoy, and Kathy Lease, Jan. 18, 2000, requesting that they develop a plan for April inservice on curriculum mapping Memorandum in Jan. 19, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 10. Memorandum in Feb. 16, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 11. E-mail, Feb. 15-17, 2000, relating to training for curriculum mapping trainers 12. Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to Brokers and IRC Specialists establishing training schedule on curriculum mapping 13. E-mail to Mona Briggs and Marion Woods, Apr. 14, 2000, relating to additional curriculum mapping training 14. E-mail, Apr. 26-May 2, 2000, relating to plans for curriculum mapping 15. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 6, 2000, with information on curriculum mapping16. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 6, 2000, relating to results of curriculum mapping training LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 December 3,1998 TO\nDennis Glasgow Judy Teeter Marie McNeal Marion Woods Patty Kohler Dr. Kathy Lease Marion Baldwin Linda Young Debbie Milam Lucy Lyon Leon Adams Carol Green Catherine Gill Marian Shead-Jackson Pat Price Ann Freeman Vanessa Cleaver Paulette Martin FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: December 9 Division Meeting Please be reminded of our Division meeting on Wednesday, December 9, 9:00 - noon. Room 19 here at the IRC. Our tentative agenda follows: 1. Opening Remarks and Announcements Bonnie Lesley 2. Report on Status of CRTs Kathy Lease 3. Brief Reports on Status of Curriculum Maps, K-4 4. Smart Start Data Analysis Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Judy Teeter Pat Price Ann Freeman Please invite those members of your departments who should attend. BAL/adg LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 July 16, 1999 TO: Mona Briggs FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley,, AAssssociate Superintendent, for Instruction SUBJECT: Curriculum Mapping Attached is a copy of the training notebook that someone picked up for me at last summers training on Curriculum Mapping. Gene Parker has one. I am also attaching a copy of a newsletter article. Id like you and Gene Parker to collaborate on putting together a training package on Curriculum Mapping for, first. Division staff and other Brokers\nfor principals\nand then perhaps a plan to train someone else at each school. I think we should leverage and exploit this new ACSIP expectation to take us to the next step of standards implementation. Lets meet to discuss - you. Gene, and me, on Tuesday, August 10, at 9:00, in Room 19. Attachments BAL/rcm cc: Kathy Lease Gene Parker LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501)324-2131 August 30, 1999 TO: Kathy Lease Mona Briggs Eddie McCoy Ed Williams Yvette Dillingham Marion Woods Patty Kohler Diane Rynders Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Pat Price Marie McNeal Carol Green Sue Walls Pam Crawford Linda Austin Debbie Milam Paulette Martin Marion Baldwin Lucy Neal Selma Hobby Leon Adams Marian S. Jackson FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesle' .ssociate Superintendent, for Instruction SUBJECT: September 1 Division Meeting I am looking forward to seeing you at the Sept.1 Division meeting - 9:00 am until Noon in Room 19 here at the IRC. Our tentative agenda is attached. Please let me know if there are topics or action items you would like to add. Attachment BAL/rcm Agenda, Division of Instruction September 1,1999 Discussion: 1999-2000 Work Plan Priorities Team Leaders Discussion and Reading Assignment Why Teams? Roles of Work Teams in School Improvement What Is Our Portfolio of Services? Guidelines for School Improvement Planning Discussion: Curriculmn Mapping Project ACC Curriculum/Assessment Professional DevelopmentScheduling Miscellaneous Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Mona Briggs Eddie McCoy Carol Green Kathy Lease Marion Woods All LL \"/\"l/H 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 November 4, 1999 I TO: FROM\nEveryone Dr. Bonnie LesleyrA^ociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nCurriculum Mapping I I The ACSIP process requires you to do curriculum mapping. A better reason is that it is a process that ensures that every teacher is aligning his/her lessons with the Curriculum Standards. It's a wonderful professional development actively, and it will move your school forward in being successful. Attached is an article that will be helpful. For more information, study Heidi Hayes Jacobs' book. Mapping the Big Picture. For even more information, call Mona Briggs or Eddie McCoy, 324-2120. I 1 1! Attachment BAL/rcm \u0026gt;1 / I { I -A 2 Lessons Learned from Curriculum Mapping By Charlotte Vlases aToya is excited. Her Sth grade class is planning a field trip to Chickamauga ___Battlefield, a local site made famous during the Civil War. LaToya had a great time when her 4th grade class toured the museum last yearshe even v/rote a paper on her visit. This year, she thinks, itll be a breeze. Theres no way shes going to tell her teacher shes been there beforeLaToya has always appreciated L an easy A.. Many teachers can see a truth reflected in the fictitious scenario above: That although we try to give our students rich learning activities, we sometimes forget that we re building on a childs entire educational experience. What happens, then, is that students like LaToya arent really challenged and dont really deepen their understanding. She may indeed have fun on that field trip. But how did her teacher make sure the trip was as intellectually rigorous as it was enjoyable? How did the teacher extend what LaToya learned during her earlier visit to Chickamauga Battlefield? Here at the Chattanooga School for the Liberal Arts (CSLA) in Chattanooga, Tenn., weve found a way to eliminate such repetitions, as well as gaps, in our curriculum. We map our curriculum so all of our teachers know what we want our students to learn, what they have learned in the past, and what theyll learn in the next gradeand beyond. Just as a road map shows where you are. the teachers within a grade level compared maps and together developed a map that represented the curriculum taught at that grade. These maps were first handwritten on large sheets of paper and posted on a wall in the office, where they remained for all teachers at every grade level to review before any changes were made. As we examined the maps, we began to see where repetitions and gaps occurred in the curriculum. Working together, we started making revisions that would ensure a logical and meaningful curriculum for all of our students. We have changed the maps several times and continue to refine them by adding essential questions, assessments, and lists of the precise skills we want students to acquire. Computer technology has made creating and revising where you've been, and where you are going, a curriculum map. gives the. sam. e information about what is occurring in a classroom, in a school, and in schools throughout a district. A Brief History of Mapping at CSLA Former principal Mary Ann Holt brought the idea of curriculum mapping to CSLA fac-ulty after reading articles by Heidi Hayes Jacobs, author of the 1997 ASCD book Mapping the Big Picture. Holt also attended workshops presented by Jacobs and was convinced that most teachers would find curriculum mapping to be a logical way to see exactly what would be taught each year within our building. What Teachers Say /Curriculum mappin gtakes time, effort.and .a wtaessTo / work witb coheagues to rret\u0026amp;finiee tteeaacchhjinngg^ ppllamnSs.\nSSttiiUll,, .mmaaktiongg: fect.sehse to teachers. Tliey sayitbest: i'After having sperrt raanyhours trymglo rnd^i^ani^a curricuhimsfit theneedsof my:swdents,\nthe.idea,^^^^ .mappingwas^i*m...e.diately, appe^, g-t p-. me\n. 1 , S -. thinkhawiig time to refledbiWhe raaps-vatli^Q^.^\u0026amp;i sw leaguesiisveiy inipoTtanTitp?y^^:^^^y^^?^' 1^\n^'bwnrnapjbml c^genera]yibimt.\u0026amp;  nevvideatobe'-sparked by^ne of m'ypeers dtmng a ..  reflection session: :..v' '7\n, ' - .f-'-^enni^H\u0026lt;mtkih,a}Tnputertec^ ?}: Curriculum inapping helps me -visualize what s bemg ,  taught , ASancy Huston^ foreign'Janguage Tt immediately rn^e sense fb me, because of how it . looks at chiidreris overall irarnmg frbm year to year, 5\" ^dbecauM ofhbwit'cqririders eachteacher and each p\u0026gt;-\ngrade as'a^tal part of an.overall lemfeg process.  _ : 7\nRobert\nV \\ It helps me focus on the objectives I want to teach. maps manageable. By keeping the maps on a database, teachers can easily share and review one anothers documents. At CSLA, our computer technology teacher created map templates for each teacher, making it simple for them to create, revise, and store the curriculum maps. cisms of their teaching plans personaUy. Everyone must be willing to work together. Teachers should never feel intimidated or judged. They must have the freedom to be completely honest when creating their first map so that it truly reflects the operational curriculum. If teachers describe their teach-ing the way they think it should be instead of Lesson Learned: A Collegial Environment Is Key Curriculum mapping isnt easy. Its time consuming and cannot be done alone. Teachers may naturally feel possessive of the units and the curriculum they have developed and perhaps taught for years. It can be difficult when a colleague suggests that a teacher give up a cherished piece of literature or a favorite activity so that someone else can use it. But those are the types of discussions that have to take place and the types of changes that have to occur to successfully implement curriculum mapping. To create a schoolwide curriculum that truly is best for students, teachers have to feel free to express themselves and not take criti-the way it actually is, then the maps will be flawed, and any revisions will be false. At CSLA, we always start the school year with a team-building activity that is fun, and not related to academics. This gives teachers opportunities to get to know one another outsidethe school setting. For example, one school year began with a white-water rafting adventure. Another year we tried a ropes course at a survival camp. The next fall we were sent on a scavenger hunt all around town, using only public transportation. Ismahen Kangles, our current principal, continued the tradition by taking the faculty to a secluded mountain cabin for some reflection time, followed by an outdoor ed a calendar-based map by listing the units lunch at a riverside restaurant. Such activities taught each month of the school year. Then We began slowly. First, each teacher creat 3 set the tone for the kind of camaraderie that must exist before the real work begins and continues. i r Lesson Learned: Support from Administrators Is ^sential To sustain a curriculum mapping approach, teachers must hear from those colleagues who have been there and are willing to share their experiences and results. Creating and refining the maps is a collaborative process that takes a substantial amount of time. Savvy administrators make sure teachers have that time. Here at CSLA, our principal devotes two faculty meetings each month to curriculum mapping work. According to Kangles, teachers need to be given time to revisit and revise their maps if they are to take an active role in bringing about curriculum mapping within their building. Training and time are important elements that an administrator provides, but equally important is the clear expectation set by the principalthat mapping willhe done. Both Holt and Kangles set deadlines for the completion of maps. When the principal sets the expectation that work will be accomplished by a specific date and then offers support, teachers get the message that mapping is a top priority and something that must be done. ! i f Personal Reflections The teachers at CSLA have accomplished a great deal in a fairly short amount of time. We began curriculum mapping with the support of knowledgeable administrators who shared a 'vision. We are committed to curriculum mapping because we are willing to do whatever it takes to create the best learning experience for our students, juh No More First-Year Jitters Preparing teachers for a successful first year of teaching sometimes seems a near-impossible task. Trying to bridge the gap between good theories in college and successful practices in the classroom is a complicated and enormous responsibility for first-year teachers. A new publication written by Amy DePaul and available from the U.S. Department of Education may be just the tool se/o\\nm-/e tttefaacrhrieprrsc nnpepeHd tton nnnott oAnnl Vy ssuurrvviivvee' but also succeed in their first year. Entitled What to Expect Your First Year of Teaching, the book is a compilation of first-year teachers responses to questions about their first year of teaching. Among the issues the book addresses is What Colleges and Universities Should Know. This chapter includes teachers comments about how their education prepared or failed to prepare them for classroom experiences. Many of the respondents stated that they lacked adequate computer training and that they could have benefitted from spending more time in real classrooms and learning more about social problems affecting young people today. These observations relate directly to teachers suggestions on how colleges and universities could improve their education programs. Top among the-suggestions\n Require student teachers to complete an internship at a crisis center to get experience with kids with social issues. The Wisdom of Experience  Help student teachers make connections with students and faculty in local districts so they can connect what theyre learning to the reality of the K-12 school setting.  Create mentoring programs so first-year teachers can share experiences and work with veteran teachers. The teachers who contributed to 'What to Expect Your First Year of Teaching also acknowledged that there were some experiences for which no college or university understanding the absolute commitment they must make to students. Respondents also felt that no teacher preparation program can adequately deal with the real-world challenges of social issues like gangs, violence, and abuse and the need to fill the many demanding roles of a teacher. The teachers whose responses are included in What to Expect were winners of the First Class Teacher Award, an award that honors the nations outstanding elementary and secondary first-year teachers. Other topics in the book include tips on having a successful first year, advice from veteran teachers on being a successful teacher, and what principals and administrators can do to help first-year teachers. H Laura Kelly Editors Note: The entire text 0/What to Expect Your First Year of Teaching is available on the Web at \u0026lt;.http:/fwww.ed .gov/pubs/FirstYear\u0026gt;. 5'S Editor's Note: Charlotte Vlasis is the library media specialist at the Chattanooga School for the Liberal Arts. As media specialist, I am a resource person. But I also serve as a curriculum coordinator because I plan with all teachers and work with everyones maps, she says. SiA\nAwar^winningveteriiteathershave supplied a set oftips to p^s on to their .first-year colleagues.\nMai^ of these suggestiqiw^etips that all teachers would be. advisedto'fbliow. Heres a sampling: It's Vlasis'job to always have the big picture'' perspective, so it's also her responsibility to let teachers know when they're stepping on one another's toes. A lot of times it's easier for me to do that,\" she notes. \"I help make sure that we are developing a curriculum that grows in a spiral and instead of just repeating things.\" Vlasis can be reached via e-mail at \u0026lt; Vlasis_char@al .cps.k-12.tn.us\u0026gt;.  Be consistentdo what you say you are going to do at all times and with  every child.\n' A? s/D.. f. . Ntodelaiovefbrlearning. l Di.i^j v : ' 7\n/.\ni\u0026lt;'\"Maintama'senseofhumori\nyf 'A 'fN j-Sffefavarid^tifintetestingi3idices.qfactivitiesfbrldds.' W N.NN Keep an open doorto parents. A T ,  \u0026gt; i*. Maintain reject above all. yy:,\nD?'A-'i-I'i'\n. ' . In a nut^ell:.bejyourself,'Wofk with'paEents, love-the kids, lqye .teaching\n'\n. Source: From What to Expect Your TirstYear of Teaching,Try A DePaul Septmt b^^ 'T'998iJVasKn^n,L\u0026gt;C:tlJS.D^drfmehtofEducdtipil.'.... I ASCD Professional Development Newsletter 5\n:!ggi856W^sda WE 1 t I t ( t t i 1 t T Curriculum Mapping: Charting the Course for Content T he Chattanooga School for the Liberal Arts is one of the schools featured in Curriculum Mapping: Charting the Course for Content, a new ASCD video-based staff development program designed to help educators explore curriculum mapping. The series consists of two videotapes and a Facilitator s Guide. The first program, The Essentials of Mapping, examines the purpose and possibilities of mapping and provides an overview of the mapping process as it has occurred in schools. The second video, Putting Mapping to Work, focuses on revising the maps using essential questions, developmental assessments, and computer technology. In bo programs, interviews and on-site observations offer perspectives of the many variables involved in curriculum mapping, including how to develop a school culture that supports mapping. The videos also describe how implementing curriculum mapping enhances student learning. The Facilitator's Guide includes detailed agendas and activities for six workshops three per videotapeas well as handouts, overheads, and additional readings and resources. Curriculum Mapping: Charting the Course for Content may be purchased for $326 (ASCD members) or $396 (nonmembers). For more information or to order, call the ASCD Service Center at 800-933-ASCD, then press 2. lilBa : i.^'f-' 1 :? A' \u0026gt;5. CTea.lmg and usmg curri^im' maps'ma^ lead to chmges in the way cur^culuni '., decisibnshremade?  \"S*'-'*' -r-.,. :  i-  Curriculum committees can be replaced with site-based councilsvwho use diejnaps r ftr.a clearpicture of the curriculum taught within the site aiidi^o make d^ioi^ ... .^^about issues that arise:  Member of the site-based councils meet at the (U^ct level to. coordinate laues between feeder schools. 1  Task forces are formed to study iKUK that need further research at e site or.. - district level. They iare disbanded when they have completed the study and inade  . Tecommendations. .Se\u0026gt;.-  To (tteafe a school culture that enables effective mapping, teachers mustbe comfbriable working with one another and feel free to be open Md honMt about their operational curriculum..'._ ....................  All decisions about the curriculum mustbe based on what is best for the leyher.  Mapping improves student performance by providing a clear picture of what Aesm- dent actuaUy experiences in grades K-12. giving teachers an opportunity to refine the curriculum to best-meet thestudents needs.  Source: From Curriculum Mapping: Charting the Course for Content, Facmtator s . Guide,^ 1999. Alexdndria,.Vd.:AssociationforSupervisionandG^^mDevelop^t^Ll I///7/9? Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Little Rock School District To: Selected Principals/Schools (Carver, Cloverdale Elem., Geyer Springs, Gibbs, Hall, King, Mabelvale Elem., Meadowcliff, Pulaski Heights Middle, Cloverdale Middle, Southwest Middle, Badgett, McDermitt, Wakefield, Woodruff) From: Mona Briggs, Evaluation Through: Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent\u0026lt;X^Xs Re: Curriculum Mapping Training Date: November 8, 1999 As you know. Curriculum Mapping is a vital part of the school improvement process. Our field representatives from the Arkansas Department of Education will be expecting to see evidence of our mapping as they visit our schools, as this is part of the ACSIP requirement. Your school has been selected for the first round of training\na team from each school will participate in learning this procedure. It will enable you and your teachers to develop and use curriculum, maps. In order to provide your team with all the information and tools that will be needed to train the rest of your staff, we have scheduled one day and a half on January 11 and 12 at the State Police Headquarters facility at Geyer Springs and I-30. The first days schedule will be from 8:30 am until 4:00 pm\nthe second day will begin at 8:30 and will end at noon. Since teachers have had to be out of the building so much this fall for curriculum training, we are suggesting that a team be comprised of the administrator and two or three staff members who do not require substitutes. For example, a team might be a principal, a counselor, a media specialist, and a curriculum specialist. It is essential that an administrator be present\nif the principal cannot be present, please permit and assistant principal to attend. The same participants must attend both days. You will be sent another notification of the training\nhowever, I wanted to get this on your calendar well in advance so as to prevent possible conflicts. If you have any questions vvhatsoever, please feel free to contact me or Eddie McCoy. Cl LL Lt Planriing, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Little Rock School District To: From: Selected Principals/Schools ( Bale, Booker, Brady, Central High, Fulbright, Metro, Mitchell, Otter Creek, Rockefeller, Western Jiills, McDermott, Baseline, J. A. Fair, Dunbar) Mona Briggs, Evaluation SpecialistVy^ Through: Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent Re: Curriculum Mapping Training Date: November 19, 1999 1' 4 iiS As you know, Curriculum Mapping is a vital part of the school improvement process. Our field representatives from the Arkansas Department of Education will be expecting to see evidence of our mapping as they visit our schools, as this is part of the ACSIP requirement. i  I\u0026lt; Your school has been selected for the second round of training\na team from each school will participate in learning this procedure. It will enable you and your teachers to develop and use curriculum maps. In order to provide your team with all the information and tools that will be needed to train the rest of your staff, we have scheduled one day and a half on January 18 and 19 at the State Police Headquarters facility at Geyer Springs and I-30. The first day's schedule will be from 8:30 am until 4:00 pm\nthe second day will begin at 8:30 and will end at noon. fj  'S? i Since teachers have had to be out of the building so much this fall for curriculum training, we are suggesting that a team be comprised of the administrator and two or three staff members who do not require substitutes. For example, a team might be a principal, a counselor, a media specialist, and a curriculum specialist. It is essential that an administrator be present\nif the principal cannot be present, please permit an assistant principal to attend. The same participants must attend both days. You will be sent another notification of the training\nhowever, I wanted to get this on your calendar well in advance so as to prevent possible conflicts. If you have any questions whatsoever, please feel free to contact me or Eddie McCoy. 9 LL l|P|av Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Little Rock School District January 12, 2000 To: From\nSelected Principals (Central, J.A. Fair, Dunbar, Baseline, Bale, Brady, Otter Creek, Rockefeller, Western Hills) , Mona Briggs, Evaluation Specialist Through\nKathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent RE: Curriculum Mapping Training Your school is scheduled on February 9 and 10,2000 to participate in Curriculum Mapping training. Our new ACSIP process requires this as part of the school improvement planning process. In order to provide you with the information and materials needed to present to your staff, please identify a team from your school consisting of an administrator and two or three other staff members who do not require substitutes. For example, a team might be the principal, a media specialist, a counselor, and a curriculum specialist. This will prevent you from having teachers out of the building. The same participants must participate both days. The training will be held at the State Police Headquarters. It is located off 1-30 at the Geyer Springs exit. The facility is located south of 1-30 on the access road. You will need to come through the main doors to the information desk. You will receive visitors' badges and will be required to sign in. The workshop is in Classroom A\nthe information desk clerk can direct you to the room. The first days schedule is from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. The second day will begin at 8:30 and will end at noon. Have each team member bring a plan book from last year for use in applying the skills learned on day 1. The more detailed the planbook, the better it will be for you to do the mapping. Be sure and eat a hearty breakfast, as we are not permitted to bring food or drink into the classroom area. However, there is a break room where you can purchase drinks and snacks during the mid-moming and mid-afternoon break. LESLEY, BONNIE From: pent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, January 18, 2000 5:39 PM BRIGGS, MONA\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nLEASE, KATHY R. Curriculum Mapping--April Inservice Please think through what the schools will need if we let them do Curriculum Mapping training on the April inservice day. I know the videos will be an issue. Can we get permission from ASCD to copy the tape for use that one day? I know we bought several tapes already, but we certainly don't have 50 for the schools to use. Should we combine some schools, perhaps? Let me know what you think. 1 To: u- 1 nloo t .1 1 I 1 I From: Through: RE: Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District Instructional Resource Center Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 January 14,2000 Selected Principals (McClellan, Forest Heights, Henderson, Chicot, Dodd, Fair Park, Forest Park, Franklin, Garland, Jefferson, Fulbright, McDermott, Hall, Pulaski Heights Elementary, Mann Magnet) Mona Briggs, Evaluation Specialist Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent Curriculum Mapping Training Your school is scheduled on March 7 and 8,2000 to participate in Curriculum Mapping training. As you know, the states ACSIP process requires mapping as part of the school improvement planning process. In order to provide you with the information and materials needed to teach your staff, please identify a team from your school consisting of an administrator and two or three other staff members who do not require substitutes. For example, a team might be the principal, a counselor, the media specialist, and a curriculum specialist. This will prevent you from having a number of teachers out of your building You are encouraged to invite your broker to the training, as well. The same participants should participate on both days. The training will be held at the State Police Headquarters. It is located off 1-30 at the Geyer Springs exit. The facility is located south of 1-30 on the access road. You will to come through the main doors to the information desk. You will be given a visitors badge and will be required to sign in. The workshops is in Classroom C\nthe information desk clerk can direct you to the room. The first days schedule is from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. The second day will begin at 8:30 a.m. and will end at noon. Have each team member bring a plan book from last fall or last year for use in applying the skills learned. The more detailed the plan book, the better it will be for you to do the mapping activities. Be sure and eat a hearty breakfast, as we are not permitted to bring food or drink into classroom area. However, there is a break room where you can purchase drinks and snacks during the mid-morning and mid-afternoon breaks. Please e-mail me when you have identified your school team. Call me at 324-2120 if you have any questions. f UL Planning, Research, and Evaluation Instructional Resource Center Little Rock, Arkansas To: Selected Principals (McClellan, Forest Heights, Henderson, Chicot, Dodd, Fair Park, Forest Park, Fulbright, Garland, Jefferson, Fulbright, McDermott, Mann, Pulaski Heights Elementary) /I From: Mona Briggs, Technical Assistance ^9^ Through: Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent for RE: Curriculum Mapping Training Date: February 14, 2000 This is just a reminder that your school is scheduled for March 7 and 8 to participate in Curriculum Mapping training. Please identify a team from your school consisting of an administrator and two or three other staff members. If you are experiencing difficulty in getting substitutes, you may choose to bring the counselor, media specialist, and a curriculum specialist. Some principals have felt strongly, particularly at the secondary level, at math and/or language arts teachers should be included. That decision is up to you\nyou may also invite your broker as weU. However, we wiU be doing training for brokers in April. The important thing is that the same participants attend both days. Don't forget, the training wiU be held at e State Police Headquarters, located at Geyer Springs exit. You must enter through the front entrance and check in at the front desk where you wUl be given a visitor's pass. The workshop will be held in Classroom C. Please arrive early enough to go through the check-in procedures and still be ready to work at 8:30. The first day is tightly scheduled. The first day's schedule is from 8130 until 4:00. The second day will begin at 8:30 and end at noon. Have each team member including yourself bring a plan book to use in applying the mapping skills. If you have questions, please call or e-mail me. I know this is a busy time of year, but earlier in the spring is always better than later when you consider aU the end of the year activities that you will be involved with. Thanks for your cooperation! LESLEY, BONNIE From: Bent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, February 17, 2000 12:29 PM BRIGGS, MONA RE: CM You always make me smile. Thank you. Oh, by the way, I can pay the $4000 plus for the inservice day. Just send me the bill and don't bother the schools with that. Have you heard that we may use the April day for snow day make-up and then move the inservice day to the end of the school year? Does that make a difference in our licensing agreement? Whatever you decide about New Orleans is fine, but I have the money if you want to go. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA Thursday, February 17, 2000 12:10 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: CM Dear B, Having just read Gayle's request, Eddie and I think it would be great for Gayle and Cassandra to be able to go to the pre-conference. Gayle really wants to go and Cassandra did not even get to go to Wilson because of the money issue at that time. Eddie and I believe that the sessions are well presented\nthere is some resistance, as will always be the case when you move peoplej out of their comfort zone. Actually, the resistance has less than one would expect\nthat last session, one school had some \"issues. II Gayle and Cassandra can bring back the information to us\nspending that money on all of us would not be an efficient use of sorely limited funds. There's a lot we need to know about this, but we don't think we will get that kind of knowledge in a conference setting where we hear the overview from a speaker and just listen. However, we do think that a site visit at some pointperhaps in the summer when we have more timeto a school district that has been doing mapping for some year would be extremely beneficial for the \"Bobsey Twins\" aka AAONA and EDDIE! (smile) So, keep that in mind... 1MAE from PRE who are doing NWEA ASAP...yadda, yadda, yadda From: Sent: To: Original Message- Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, February 17, 2000 12:00 PM BRADFORD, GAYLE\nBRIGGS, MONA\nSTEELE, CASSANDRA\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nMcNEAL, MARIE\nGLASGOW, DENNIS: DAVIS, SUZI\nCLEAVER, VANESSA GILLIAM, ANITA RE: CM If any or all of you would like to attend the ASCD pre-conference on curriculum mapping (see Gayle Bradford's appeal below), then I will fund it out of my budget. Please send your forms to Anita Gilliam for processing. From: Sent: Original Message- To: LESLEY, BONNIE BRADFORD, GAYLE Thursday, February 17, 2000 11:26 AM Subject: Importance: RE: CM High Sorry I missed you last night - I'll be at the NSF meeting at 8:30 tomorrow at Adult Leisure Center. Let me tell you what I wanted to discuss. I'm not sure but think that probably Kathy, Sadie or Mona/Eddie have told you what a fiasco we had in the last curriculum mapping training. There was much negativism on the part of one school in particular and comments as to lack of expertise on the part of the presenters. Well, we (in the opening portion of the workshop) explained that we were not experts and that we were learning along with everyone else but had been slated to deliver this information to them in an orderly fashion to assist them in training their teachers to do CM. We also explained that mapping is a state mandate and have no choice about implementing - however, noting that it was chosen by the state because it has been shown to be effective in increasing student achievement. Anyway, at the end of the session, the four of us met. I told them and later told Sadie and Kathy that I feel quite inadequate. I immediately got on the internet and found that there is a two-day session at ASCD this year (March 22/23) where Heidi Hayes Jacobs is doing CM. I asked Sadie about it - she suggested that I sit down and talk with you about it. I believe we need the training since this is a long-term commitment on our part - a multi-year process. I am requesting that we be allowed to get the training in March so that we can be ready for the rest of the training and implementing all seven phases of Jacobs' model - we're still at phase one but need the fine-tuned information from a training session on the model. We also need to visit a school (s) where the model has been implemented and \"pick their brains\" as to how their training took place, timelines for implementation of the seven phases, etc. Could you please send us to the training? I'm not the type person who feels good about doing half-ass work - presentations need to be good - I don't like to go before a group of folks and present information, let them know what we have lying ahead, and then can't field questions. PLEASE HELP! Gayle B. Bradford Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 501.324.0568\nfax: 501.324.2213 gbbradf@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, February 16, 2000 10:02 AM BRADFORD, GAYLE RE: CM I'll be there for the Board meeting on Thursday and for the compliance meeting on Friday morning. Original Message From: BRADFORD, GAYLE 2 Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 1:17 PM LESLEY, BONNIE CM Hi, Will you be coming over to this building in the next few days? I'd like to talk with you about CM training. I won't be in your shop for a number of days because of cluster meetings, etc. around here. Thanks. Gayle B. Bradford Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 501.324.0568\nfax: 501.324.2213 gbbradf@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 3 DO Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District March 27, 2000 To: Brokers/IRC Specialists From: Mona Briggs, Technical Assistance Through: Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent for P.R.E. I RE: Curriculum Mapping Training We are providing a one-day curriculum mapping training session on April 24, 2000, for Brokers and interested IRC Specialists who have not yet had the training. The training will be held at the State Police Headquarters, located at 1-30 and the Geyer Springs exit. You will be required to enter the front entrance and check in at the front desk where you will be given a visitors pass. The workshop will be held in Classroom C. The workshop will begin at 8:30 a.m. and will conclude at 4:00 p.m. Be sure and eat a hearty breakfast, as we are not permitted to bring any food or drink into the room itself. There is, however, a break-room where drinks and snacks can be purchased during morning and afternoon breaks. Please let me know if you are not going to be able to attend. You can telephone me at 324-2120 or e-mail me. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks!LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, April 14, 2000 10:40 AM BRIGGS, MONA\nWOODS, MARION LEASE, KATHY R. RE\nCM Day for High Schools The high schools have two and one half days of pre-school inservice. They must use one of those days to do curriculum mapping. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA Friday, April 14, 2000 10:25 AM WOODS, MARION LEASE, KATHY R.\nLESLEY, BONNIE CM Day for High Schools M, Is there a way we can build in time during our summer pre-school days for the five high schools to inservice their staffs on Curriculum mapping? They cannot do it in June with everyone else due to CAP activities. They have concerns about how they are going to be able to do it. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Seek first to understand, then to be understood Mona mrbrigg@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 LESLEY, BONNIE aFrom: lent: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, May 02, 2000 3:24 PM BRIGGS, MONA RE\nCM District Timeline See Anita for a time for us to meet. -Original Message- From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: High BRIGGS, MONA Wednesday, April 26, 2000 5:09 PM LEASE, KATHY R.\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nSTEELE, CASSANDRA\nBRADFORD, GAYLE FW: CM District Timeline Great minds run in the same vein...Eddie and I have been \"saying\" we have got to get this stuff nailed down. I gave Daniel the tapes to copy and he completed the taping and they are ready for June 5. We need to get a memo out to principals and yes, we need to determine expectations and a timeline...etc. Kathy and Bonnie: would you guys be willing to sit down with us for a few focused minutes and give us your input on our next steps? If so, give me some times and I will get with Gayle, Eddie, and Cassandra and set up the time and date. Let me know... MONA Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: High BRADFORD, GAYLE Wednesday, April 26, 2000 4:36 PM BRIGGS, MONA CM District Timeline Mona, I am really antsy about getting our CM in focus for both now and the future -- we need to sit down with Kathy and Bonnie, plan/draft a timeline for the district and get their input as to implementation levels, etc. Remember, the principals and even the team members attending the training had the \"need\" to know where they are going -- our district's plan in getting the whole process implemented from the time the teachers map their lesson plans, take their individual maps on to their grade levels, and then on to the final stage of having those maps established -- posted in their buildings for all to see -- and then on a semester basis, reviewing the previous semester's map and modifying those areas they see where changes need to be made, etc. Sorry so long -- kind of thinking as I am typing. BOTTOM LINE -- PLEASE, LET'S GET INPUT FROM KATHY AND BONNIE. Bye, Gayle Gayle B. Bradford Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Uttle Rock, AR 72201 501.324.0568\nfax: 501.324.2213 gbbradf@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 1 LESLEY, BONNIE a From: lent: Subject: McCOY, EDDIE Tuesday, June 06, 2000 3:50 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: curriculum mapping models I checked this out and it's very interesting. I printed some of the grade levels in the areas of math and language arts. They did a good job of focusing on content, skills/concepts, and assessment. The Sth grade curriculum is divided into six units, each lasting four weeks. This example may be helpful to schools using thematic units. This can serve as a good example for those schools having difficulty with the mapping concept/process! Of course, they appear to be further along in the process than we are. Thanks for the \"heads up.\" We have received a lot of positive feed-back on Monday's curriculum mapping activities! Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY. BONNIE Tuesday, June 06, 2000 8:36 AM BRIGGS, MONA\nMcCOY, EDDIE FW: curriculum mapping models Want to check this out? Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MADDOX, BEVERLY Friday, June 02, 2000 3:14 PM BUCK, LARRY\nROGERS, SHERRY\nBOYKIN, PATRICIA BRIGGS, MONA\nWILSON, VEKISSA\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nLACEY, MARIAN G. curriculum mapping models  File\ncurriculum mappping.doc  If this site is still active, it could contain some useful models. I'm going to visit it before Monday, if I have time. I know you would be interested. Beverly 1LESLEY, BONNIE From: pent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, June 06, 2000 12:06 PM BRIGGS, MONA RE: curriculum mapping models Great news! Pinch me tool Making taking the pressure off them helped. Now they are doing it because they want to-not because we said they had to. Original Message- From: Sent: To: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:36 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: curriculum mapping models Thanks! I have continued to get positive reports--from Rightsell, Baseline. Mann, and Southwest. They really got into it! My husband was mapping his physcial education classes and is gonna complete his map over the summer...pinch me now! Original Message- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, June 06, 2000 8:36 AM BRIGGS, MONA: McCOY, EDDIE Subject: FW: curriculum mapping models Want to check this out? Original Message- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MADDOX, BEVERLY Friday, June 02, 2000 3:14 PM BUCK, LARRY\nROGERS, SHERRY\nBOYKIN, PATRICIA BRIGGS, MONA\nWILSON, VEKISSA\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nLACEY, MARIAN G. curriculum mapping models  File: curriculum mappping.doc  If this site is still active, it could contain some useful models. I'm going to visit it before Monday, if I have time. I know you would be interested. Beverly 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   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_374","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Writings on Program Evaluation-School District Improvement''","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":["1999/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Writings on Program Evaluation-School District Improvement''"],"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/374"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\"WRITINGS\" ON PROGRAM EVALUATION SCHOOL/DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTWritings on Program EvaluationSchool/District Improvement School Improvement 1. Document: Guidelines to School Improvement Planning. August 1999 (distributed to participants of summer 1999 Campus Leadership Team Institute)\nsee pp. 1-16 of using data for decision making and prioritizing\npp. 29-30 on Plan Evaluation.) 2. Memorandum in Feb. 9, 2000, Learning Links from Bonnie Lesley on conducting a formative evaluation of the progress on the School Improvement Plan with attached ERS research article: School Improvement\nFactors Leading to Success or Failure 3. Document of notes made by Bonnie Lesley in efforts to analyze the first ALT results in spring 2000, by school 4. Memorandum in Dec. 16, 1998, Learning Links to principals from Bonnie Lesley establishing the waiver process, with attached application form, including a required evaluation design. Title I 5. Memorandum to Cabinet from Bonnie Lesley, Jan. 4, 1999, requesting feedback on a draft plan to restructure the Districts Title I program in order to align it with new literacy and mathematics curricula and Smart Start, as well as with the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ^7 6. Memorandum to elementary principals from Bonnie Lesley, June 9, 1999, clarifying Title I program issues and the importance of aligning Title I programs with efforts to improve achievement. 7. Memorandum to Board of Education from Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 12, 1999, on issues relating to changes in the Districts Title I Plan for 1999-2000. ^7 8. Memorandum to John Walker, et al, from Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 1, 1999, relating to changes in the LRSD Title I Plan for 1999-2000\nattaching copy of the plan. Arkansas Quality Award 9. Feedback from Arkansas Quality Award to 1999 application for Level I Award, September 8, 1999 37 10. Planning document to write the application for the Arkansas Quality Award, prepared by Bonnie Lesley in April 200011. E-mail to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 26, 2000, thanking them for contributions to the writing of the application for the Arkansas Quality Award i3 12. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to selected staff. May 4, 2000, with attached copy of application to Arkansas Quality Award program 13. Application for the Arkansas Quality Award: Little Rock School District: Dedicated to Excellence, May 5, 2000 14. Agenda for planning meeting for Arkansas Quality Award site visit. August 14, 2000, with attachment, Arkansas Quality Award Application Procedure 15. Agenda for Arkansas Quality Award Site Visit, August 16-18, 2000 30 16. Feedback from Arkansas Quality Award after site visit on August 16-18, 2000. Evaluation Reports from ODM 17. Memorandum to Ann Brown and ODM Staff from Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 4, 1999, in response to draft of their report. ^0 18. Memorandum from Ann Brown to Bonnie Lesley, Oct. 15, 1999, in response to Aug. 4 memorandum. 19. Letter from Kathy Lease to N.W. Marshall at ODM, Oct. 11, 1999, stating concern that NCEs were used to make judgments in Achievement Disparity report. 20. Letter from N.W. Marshall to Kathy Lease, Oct. 22, 1999, in response to her concerns. 21. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to curriculum staff. May 10, 2000, with copy of feedback from ODM on curriculum documents. 22. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to curriculum staff. May 16, 2001, with assignment to rewrite the grade-level and course benchmarks for the parent publications\nexample attached. (Reference feedback from ODM evaluation of curriculum documents, April 25, 2000). Guidelines for School Improvement Planning Supplement to the Handbook for Campus Leadership Team Developed by the Division of Instruction Little Rock School District August 1999 1School Improvement Planning This draft of the guidelines for School Improvement Planning is the result of a commitment made by the Little Rock School District to consolidate all the planning requirements at the school level so that when a school designs its annual and long-range School Improvement Plan, it is satisfying district requirements, Title I requirements, and ACSIP requirements. To the extent possible, the LRSD uses the language and definitions of ACSIP and ACTAAP to reduce confusion. The School Improvement Plan that you produce will serve also as the Title I plan for the schools involved in that program. In some cases, to satisfy federal and state requirements. Title I schools will also submit some supplemental information to the School Improvement Plan. See p. 68 in the Handbook for Campus Leadership Team for the LRSD planning calendar. Page 65 is a glossary of planning terms that may also be helpful. School Performance Report If you study the ACTAAP document that is included in the back of your Handbook for Campus Leadership Team, you will see references in that paper (p. 10) to the School Performance Report or, as we may call it, the Building-Level Report Card. See also pp. 16-17 in the Handbook in the local section on Collective Responsibility. The School Performance Report, mandated in law in the last legislative session, will be published annually by the ADE, mailed to all parents, and included on the ADE web pages. This report is a part of the overall ACTAAP system and is included in what is required under Public Reporting of results. The indicators on the School Performance Report are the same, in many cases, as the Performance Indicators in ACTAAP, but they include some additional ones as well. It is important for everyone to understand that we have both this Public Reporting document or School Performance Report and the ACTAAP accountability system that includes a separate set of indicators, a reward system, and a sanction system. They are two different things, but there are overlaps in the indicators in some cases. The challenge, then, of the Campus Leadership Team is to develop your School Improvement Plan in ways that will impact not only the Performance Indicators under ACTAPP and the LRSD Quality Indicators, but also the indicators that will be reported on the School Performance Report. The first School Improvement Reports will be published based on the 1999-2000 data, and they are to be available no later than September 15, 2000. You are going to want to show growth in as many of the indicators as possible, of course, so your School Improvement Plan is a vehicle to achieve those improvements. A list of the indicators that ADE will be required by law to report follows: 1Elementary Schools The report for elementary schools shall include three-year trend data and allow parents or guardians to compare the schools performance with state and national averages in areas and shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures: A. B. C. D. School safety Discipline Norm-referenced test results Criterion-referenced test results E. Percentage of students promoted to the next grade level F. Certified staff qualifications G. Total per-pupil spending H. Assessment of the local taxpayer investment in the school district I. Percentage of students eligible to receive free or reduced price meals J. Average salary of staff K. Average attendance rates for students Middle and High Schools The report for middle and high schools shall include three-year trend data and allow parents and guardians to compare the schools performance with state and national averages in areas which include, but not be limited to, the following: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. School safety Discipline Norm-referenced test results Criterion-referenced test results Percentage of students promoted to the next grade level Certified staff qualifications Per-pupil spending Assessment of the local taxpayer investment in the school district Percentage of students eligible to receive free or reduced price meals Average salary of the staff Average attendance rates of students Drop-out rate Graduation or completion rates College remediation rate (for high schools only)\nand Collegiate admission test results 2School districts may prepare and distribute supplemental materials concerning the information contained in the school performance reports, and the LRSD will do so. step 1: Review/Revise the School Mission Statement Mission statements are dynamic and should periodically be reviewed to determine whether changes should occur and to keep the school mission aligned with the LRSD Mission. Step 2: Baseline Data\nTaking Stock Collecting, Profiling, and Analyzing Data Conduct a comprehensive data collection and analysis of the baseline data for each of the ACTAAP and Quality Indicators for your school. (See reprints of pages for elementary schools, middle schools, or high schools at the end of this document.) Fill in the Your Results column with the baseline data as a first step in this process. You may wish to add pages to include other data, including data to address from the School Performance Report. Your analysis must include a careful disaggregation of the trend and baseline data (by race, gender, socio-economic status, LEP/non-LEP, Sped/non-Sped, etc.) You may wish to group the indicators by subject, program, or grade level to determine the preponderance of evidence about your schools performance for each sub-group. Think of yourselves as detectives at this step of the work. Gather evidence, including evidence revealed from other data you may have availablesuch as grades, portfolio assessments, survey information, other program assessments (i.e., computer lab test results), etc. You should also examine data related to indicators that are not listed in the Quality Indexparent involvement data, for instance, or teacher attendance rates, or percent of students participating in co-/extra-curricula activities, or how high school students are using their electives, etc. These other indicators undoubtedly have implications for some of the broader areas of achievement. Do not indulge in finger-pointing or blaming. Your business is to improve, not to dwell on the past. Stay focused on the kinds of discussions that make a difference in student achievement: curriculum, staff development, supervision, instructional programs, student assessment, action research, program evaluation, instructional budget. 3School School Improvement Plan Year Priority 1 Supporting Data\n. Goal(s): One-Year Benchmark(s): 4 School School Improvement Plan Year Intervention: Actions Person(s) Responsible Timeline Resources District Budget Title I Budget APIG/Other Budget i 1 5 step 3: Selecting Priorities Using your data analysis, make decisions about 3-5 priority areas for your School Improvement Plan. You must include the following two priorities until your school has 100 percent of the students performing at the proficient level or above on the State Benchmark or End-of-Level tests\nImprove student achievement in reading and writing literacy. Improve student achievement in mathematics. One priority area may include all the measurements in the ACTAAP and Quality Indicators related to a program area-mathematics, for instance. Some examples of middle school mathematics performance indicators are as follows: Performance on State-Mandated Criterion-Referenced Tests Performance on SAT9 Performance on District-adopted CRT Enrollment in Pre-AP courses Enrollment in Algebra I by grade 8 Hints You may want to consider as an action an activity related to other Quality Indicatorsespecially those relating to ensuring appropriately licensed teachers or ensuring that all staff participate in 60 hours or more of professional development, as those hours relate to the planned interventions. If your priority area is mathematics, for instance, student learning would undoubtedly be impacted with better trained teachers in mathematics content, instructional strategies, and assessment strategies. In other words, you can address some of the ACTAAP and Quality Indicators without selecting them among your priorities. Be aware that you may also have a priority area that is not explicitly addressed in the Quality Indicatorssuch as Improving parental involvement Improving the teacher attendance rate. Remember, however, to make decisions about priorities based on data, and remember that success has to be determined with data, so start at this step with building an understanding of how success will be measured if there are no stated Quality Indicators that match the selected priority area. 6step 4: Supporting Data Record the data that your have identified as your rationale for selecting each priority area. In other words, show your schools performance in two or more Quality Indicators that indicate your need to focus on that area as your priority. You may (and are encouraged to do so) include disaggregated data in listed your Supporting Data. Examples for a middle school follow: State Benchmark ExamGrade 6 Mathematics: 32% performing at or above the proficient level\n80% of those not performing at the proficient level or above are African- Americans, and 70% of those are male. SAT9 Grade 7 Total Mathematics: 23% at or above the SO** percentile\n65% of African American males are in the lowest quartile. % enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8: 12%\nonly 3% are African American males. Note 1\nThe examples above indicate that the school must include one or more interventions designed to be effective with African American males. The interventions might include some actions related to program enhancements, to special tutoring programs, to more use of cooperative learning instructional strategies, to recruitment of African American male mentors, to an emphasis on parent involvement, or, perhaps, a special professional development program for the staff that would enable you better to understand what the root problems are and what the school can do to impact those problems. Note 2: Title I schools can also use this step to begin identifying students who require targeted assistance to support their achievement of the curriculum standards/benchmarks. Disaggregation of data and then an analysis of those data will enable the school to design more effective interventions. Remember that even if a Title I school decides to be a schoolwide project, the school still has the responsibility to target the lowest achievers for special assistance or programming. Step 5: Setting Goals See the pages above with the tables for elementary, middle, and high schools. In the fourth column of those tables you will see a series of goal definitions from which to select for this section of your plan. Remember that there are three kinds of goals: 7absolute perfoimance goals that include a specific percent of students who are expected within a given period of time to perform at a specific level\ntrend goals that establish an expected improvement of one cohort of students performance compared to last years cohort at that level (this years fourth grade compared to last years fourth grade, for instance): and improvement goals that establish an expected improvement of the same cohort from a pre-test to a post-test (this years sixth grade as compared to those same students in grade 4). You might also think about these three kinds of goals in this way: Performance goals are long-term goalswhere students are expected to be within five or ten years, for instance. Trend goals are one-year goalsthe typical way that we look at achievement datahow we did this year as compared to how a different cohort did last year. Trend goals set one year at a time become your Benchmarks (see Step 6 below). If you achieve your trend goals consistently over a ten-year period according to the State Indicators, you would achieve the performance goal for those indicators. Again using middle school mathematics as an example, you might choose the following goals: 100% of our schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 8 mathematics on the State Benchmark Examination. 65% of our schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50*^ percentile in mathematics on the SAT9. At least 30% of our schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics on the SAT9. 90% of our schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics each semester on the District-adopted CRT. 890% of our schools students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. Note: The examples above do not include every possible mathematics goal from the Quality Indicators. Your team will choose those which it sees as most important orthose that you believe you can impact in this particular year. Again, if there is an achievement gap that needs to be addressed, then the school may wish to state its goal statements in terms of improvement of achievement for African American males, for instance: At least 50% of African American males who performed at Below Basic and Basic levels in grade 4 shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 6 mathematics on the State Benchmark Exam. The percent of African American males enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 shall improve from 3% to 20% in 1999-2000. ACSIP Advice in Goal Setting: Critical Questions According to the ACSIP documents, the following are important in the goalsetting process: A goal is directly linked to a priority. A goal narrows the scope of the priority. Two or three goals per priority would be advisable. Goal selection should be guided by the critical questions for Federal Programs, Special Education, and Equity. (See below, plus two additional categories: LEP Students and Parent Involvement) Goals are achievement-driven. The ACSIP Critical Questions follow: Federal Programs Will Title VI be used to support the plan in ways that...  Promote equitable quality education for all students?  Provide training in support of local school reform efforts?  Provide leadership in support of local school reform efforts?  Provide for technical assistance of local school reform efforts?  Involve parents, teachers, administrators and private schools in the decision-making process? 9Does the plan allow for one or more of the following areas?  Supplemental (not required by the State) technology related to the professional development to assist school personnel regarding how to effectively use equipment and software for instructional purposes?  Instructional materials programs for the acquisition and use of instructional materials?  Programs that include promising education reform components (Effective Schools Research, etc.)?  Programs to improve the higher order thinking skills of disadvantaged students and to prevent students from dropping out of school?  Provisions for gifted and talented children?  Provisions that are consistent with the Goals 2000: Education America Act?  Activities authorized under Title I, Sections 1116 and 1117, to give all children the opportunity for high performance, to establish needs assessments to perceive deficient areas, and to implement research-based actions that address deficient areas? Special Education Does the plan provide children with disabilities the appropriate modifications, adaptations, and supplementary aids and services to ensure that they have equitable access to the same curricula content as their nondisabled peers? Will the plan facilitate the improvement of the academic performance of children with disabilities? Does the plan hold an expectation of high achievement based on high standards, and does it hold students, the school, and the district accountable for learning and teaching? Does the plan guarantee educational equity for all children? Does the plan allow for flexibility in providing meaningful instruction closely linked to the general curriculum/ appropriate activities enabling all students to be successful in the real world? Does the plan ensure accountability by providing a mechanism for monitoring lEP modifications within the regular classroom? Does the plan evidence issues and ideas presented in Enhancing Student Success Through Accountability and Leadership, published by the Accountability Task Force on the Individualized Education Program and Program 10Effectiveness Evaluation, Arkansas Department of Education, Special Education (October 1998)? Does the plan address the professional development needs of all district personnel relative to meeting the needs of children with disabilities? Does the plan address the use of technology to assist children with disabilities access to the general curriculum/ appropriate activities enabling all students to be successful in the real world? Equity Are students who are educationally disadvantaged achieving at the same level as the advantaged students? Will there be evidence that teachers have high expectations for every student as a result of the plan? Are resources being provided to assist all students in attaining high levels of achievement? Are all students being challenged? Are all groups of students given opportunities and encouragement to be involved in all school programs? What evidence is there that teachers have high expectations for all students? Are resources provided to assist educationally disadvantaged students in overcoming environmental and other handicaps? What evidence is there that learning deficits of certain groups of students are overcome? Are students enrolled in all programs at the same proportions as their representation in the school population? Are academic goals the same for all groups of students? Are all student groups represented in advanced and intermediate courses? Are all constituencies of the school (teachers, administrators, parents, students, and community representatives) involved in developing school procedures that ensure equity? Parent InvolvementTitle I The Districts application for Title I funds requires us to assure the state that all of our Title I schools have complied with the following mandates for parent involvement. Be sure that you have addressed each obligation. If you are currently out of compliance, then Parent Involvement may necessarily become one of your priorities. 1. The District assures that each Title I school shall jointly develop with and distribute to parents of participating children a written parental involvement policy, agreed upon by the parents that described the means of carrying 11 out the requirements of parent involvement and the shared responsibilities for high student performance. 2. If the parent involvement policy is not agreed upon, the comments of those in disagreement are attached to the District plan. 3. Did each Title I school in the District convene an annual meeting, at a convenient time, to which all parents were invited and encouraged to attend, to inform parents of their schools participation in the Title I program and their right to be involved prior to submitting the District plan? 4. Did each Title I school in the District offer a flexible number of meetings in the development of the plan, such as morning or evening and provide (if funds are available) transportation, child care, or home visits, as such services relate to parental involvement? 5. Did each Title I school in the LEA involve parents in an organized, ongoing, and timely way, in the planning, review, and improvement of programs under this part, including the school parental involvement policy and the join development of the school wide plan for their school? 6. The District assures each Title I school will provide parents of participating children the following:  Timely information about programs\n School performance profiles and their childs individual student assessment results, including an interpretation of such results\n A description and explanation used to measure student progress and proficiency levels that students are expected to meet\n Offer opportunities for regular meetings to formulate suggestions, share experiences with other parents, and participate in decisions relating to the education of their children\nand  Offer timely responses to suggestions made by parents. 7. The District assures that if a schoolwide plan is not satisfactory to the parents of participating children that those parents' comments on the plan will be made available to the Department of Education. School-Parent Compact 8. The District assures that each participating schools has jointly developed with parents of all participating children a school-parent compact as part of its parent involvement policy that outlines how parents, school staff, and students will share responsibility for improving student achievement. 129. The Compact will: Describe responsibilities of schools and parents that enable participating children to meet the states student performance standards. Describe the parents responsibilities for supporting learning such as monitoring attendance, homework completion, TV watching, volunteering in their childs classroom, and positive use of extracurricular time. 9. The District assures that parents will be provided assistance to participating parents in the areas of: Understanding the National Education Goals, State Content and Student Performance Standards, State technical assistance for schoolwide and targeted assistance school components, state and local assessment. Title I parent involvlement requirements, how to monitor student progress, and how to work with educators to improve the childs performance. 10. The District assures that parents will be provided with materials and training and coordinate literacy training to help parents work with their children to improve achievement. 11.The District assures that teachers, pupil service personnel, principals and other staff persons will be educated in the value and use of parent contributions, how to work with parents as equal partners, implement parent programs, and build ties between home and school. 12.The District assures that it will integrate parent involvement programs and activities with other pre-school programs. 13. The District assures that community-based organizations and businesses will be encouraged to form partnerships between schools at all levels. 14. The District will conduct other activities such as a parent resource center and provide opportunities for parents to hear child development and child rearing issues that are designed to help parents become full partners in the education of their children. Limited-English-Proficient Students The Office of Civil Rights will expect to see components such as the following in your school plan: Are the needs of LEP students considered in your schools plan (not just in the Newcomer Centers, but in every school where there are LEP students enrolled)? 13Wiaf is.tftaemscimsi' is. teaching English language skite arid itnssdSuiction for LEP students? Are LEP studsints is aligned with the curriculum framewor'^s and iShe,.a^j^jpriate grade-level or course benchmarks? Are critical documents translated i.ritelhe'language of students homes? When \"educationally disadvantaged children are discussed and plans made to meet their needs, are LEP students included? What is the professional development plan so that all teachers who serve LEP students participate in training in ESL methodologies, assessment strategies, and cultural sensitivity? step 6: Establishing Benchmarks State Benchmark Examinations For each of your goal statements, you must establish the amount of growth that you intend to achieve this school year. According to the ACTAAP document (in reference to performance on the State Benchmark Examinations or End-of-Level Tests), p. 15, On average, each schools trend goal for annual rate of reduction in the number of students below proficient will be determined by dividing the total percent of students below the proficient level by 10. Remember that a trend goal compares the performance of one cohort of students with anotherthis year's grade 8 students as compared to last years grade 8. Therefore, at least for 1999-2000, you can compute your benchmarks for the State Benchmark Examinations according to the following formula: 100% minus % of your students currently performing at or above the proficient level divided by 10 equals the number of required percentage points to meet your trend goal Assuming that you had in 1998-99 32% of the students performing at or above the proficient level: 100 minus 32 equals 68. 68 divided by 10 equals 7 points of required improvement. Your 1999-2000 benchmarks would, therefore, be as follows: 1432 (1998-99 performance) + 7 points of required improvement = 39% at or above the proficient level Note: It is important here as a part of your work to calculate exactly how many students you are required to move up to get the 7 points of improvement. Look to see how many students are at grade level and calculate how many of them would equal 7 percentage points. State your benchmark in a measurable statement that includes who, what, when, and how much. In 1999-2000, the LRSD school shall improve 7 points so that at least 39% of the students will perform at or above the proficient level on the State Benchmark Examination in grade 8 mathematics. Who\nWhat: When: grade 8 students in the LRSD school State Benchmark Examination in mathematics In 1999-2000 How Much: 7 points improvement (from 32 to 39% at or above proficient level) Then the 2000-01 benchmark would be 39% +7 = 46%. Etc. In 2000-01, at least 46% of the grade 8 students will perform at or above the proficient level on the State Benchmark Examination in mathematics. To Consider: A divisor of 10 indicates that to stay off the States identified list of schools requiring improvement, a school would have 10 years to meet the state goal of 100% of the students performing at or above the proficient level, assuming the school meets the required improvement goal each year. We in Little Rock cannot be satisfied with that time frame since our average performance is at an unacceptable level in many schools. We cannot wait 3-4 years, for instance, for a minimum of 50 percent of our students to meet the state standards. We have to accelerate our grovizth a lot if we are to catch up with other districts and if our kids are to be competitive with their peers not just in Arkansas, but also nationally and globally. Research on restructuring that works in terms of improved student achievement indicates that two variables that are the most powerful are as follows:  every students access to a rigorous curriculum (teaching the tested curriculum, in other words, the curriculum standards/benchmarks\nalignment of teachers lesson plans with the state curriculum frameworks and district benchmarks) 15developing a true sense of collective responsibility everybody doing whatever it takes in terms of commitment to improve teaching and learning. This variable includes a strong emphasis on professional development and ongoing learning. SAT9 Benchmarks Computing the benchmarks for performance on the SAT9 is done a little differently. If the Quality Indicator you are considering is the one relating to at lOact Rk norAanI __ i_ _ .1 .-^th oc X f -------------------------------------72'-'^'\" ly i'j M WI ik\n? I c\niain lu lu CJI L performing at or above the 50 percentile, then the calculation is as follows\n65/o minus % of your students currently performing at or above the 50 percentile ^ided by 10 equals the required percentage-point increase in the number of students performing at or above the 50*^ percentile. Assuring that you had in 1998-99 only 22% performing at or above the 50 percentile: 65 minus 22 equals 43 43 divided by 10 equals 5 points of required improvement. (That is not five percentile points, but 5 percent more of the students tested performing at or above the 50* percentile.) Your benchmark statement: In 1999-2000, the LRSD school shall improve by 5 percentage points (from 22% to 27%) the percentage of students performing or above the 50 percentile on the grade 10 SAT9 mathematics test. at it is important for you to calculate exactly how many students would constitute 5 percentage points. If you are working on improving the percentage of students in the highest niiartUo thAn _____i_ . . . _ a quartile, then you compute your benchmark as follows: 30% giinus % of your students currently performing in the highest quartile divided by 10 equals the required percentage-point increase in the number of students performing in the highest quartile. Assuming that you had in 1998-99 only 4% performing in the highest quartile: 30 minus 4 equals 26. 26 divided by 10 equals 3 points of required improvement in the percent of students performing in the highest quartile. 16Calclulate how many students that would be. Benchmark statement: In 1999-2000, the LRSD school shall improve at least 3 percentage points (from 4% to 7%) in the percent of students performing at the highest quartile on the grade 5 SAT9 reading test. Most schools badly need to work on moving students from the lowest quartile to the higher levels of performance. The formula for computing the benchmark is as follows: 90% minus % of your students currently performing in quartiles 2, 3, and 4 (above the lowest quartile) divided by 10 equals the required percentage-point increase in the number of students performing above the lowest quartile. Assuming that you had in 1998-99 57% performing in the lowest quartile and only 43% above the lowest quartile: 90% minus 43% equals 47 47 divided by 10 equals 5 points of required improvement in the percent of students performing above the lowest quartile. Calculate how many students that would be. Benchmark statement: In 1999-2000, the LRSD will improve at least 5 percentage points (from 43% to 48% in the percent of students performing above the lowest quartile on the grade 7 SATO mathematics test. In General To compute your benchmark, you have to know two things to start with:  The performance goal for the performance indicatorsthe percent expected (i.e., 100% will be proficient\n65% will be above the 50th percentile\n65% will enroll in Pre-AP and AP courses, etc.)  Your schools performance last year. Step?: Designing Interventions Now that you have your data analyzed, your priorities determined, your goals selected, and your benchmarks established, you are ready to do the real work of developing the plan for improvement. An intervention is a significant strategy, research-based program, or major initiative designed to solve the problem defined by your selected priority (definition from ACSIP document). 17a Your first School Improvement Plan is both a long-term plan (3-5 years) and a short-term plan (one year). After you have thought through the long-term plan, and if you stay with it, then updating the plan one year at a time is not that difficult. Your annual plan simply deletes what is already accomplished and adds any new action steps required to implement the next years plan or adds some new interventions. Good Campus Leadership Teams are always thinking ahead two to five years, knowing that everything cannot be accomplished in one year, but getting clear about what needs to happen this year in order to take the next steps to reform during the following year. If your school does not have a long-term plan in place with which you are comfortable, then your work must be to design as quickly as possible your 1999- 2000 plan for improvement in spring 2000. There is much that you can do to align your lesson plans with the State Curriculum Frameworks and the District Benchmarks so that all students are exposed to the tested curriculum. There are programs that you can put into place early in the year for maximum impact on student achievement. There are effective teaching strategies that you can use that will enable more students to be effective learners. There are assessment strategies that you can use to check student progress frequently and then to modify and adjust your teaching so that more students are successful. All the faculty can make a commitment to form a professional community now that supports an attitude of collective responsibility for results. But begin now as well to start thinking ahead to your 2000-01 plan. Ideally, the design of effective interventions needs to begin in summer 1999 to include in the 2000-01 plan in order for there to be time for the team to do research, to visit schools where the intervention is being successfully implemented, and to involve staff and parents in ways that ensure buy-in. A part of every schools plan realistically includes a plan to plan for the next year and down the road, always looking ahead to what steps should be phased in for total restructuring. Schools that wait until the plan is almost due to begin the process are not likely to get desired improvements. Planning is ongoing, not an event. An intervention, in general, is something new that your school decides to do that enhances, supplements, or goes beyond the District-established programs so that the performance of targeted students improves. The implementation of ELLA, for instance, is not a school-level intervention. Neither would be the implementation of the new TERCS mathematics programs. Both are already established. You may find the following research-based criteria helpful in selecting appropriate program interventions for your school: f i 1 18What Factors Contribute to Program Effectiveness? (from Show Me the Evidence! By Robert Slavin and Olatokunbo Fashola, Corwin Press, 1998) 1. 2. 3. Effective programs have clear goals, emphasize methods and materials linked to those goals, and constantly assess students' progress toward the goals. There is no magic in educational innovation. Programs that work invariably have a small set of very well-specified goals ..., a clear set of procedures and materials linked to those goals, and frequent assessments that indicate whether or not the students are reaching the goals. Effective programs leave little to chance. They incorporate many elements, such as research-based curricula, instructional methods, classroom management methods, assessments, and means of helping students who are struggling, all of which are tied in a coordinated fashion to the instructional goals. Programs almost always have their strongest impacts on the objectives they emphasize. Effective and replicable programs have well-specified components, materials, and professional development procedures. There is a belief in many quarters that each school staff must develop or codevelop their own reform model, that externally developed programs cannot be successfully replicated in schools that had no hand in developing them. ... In fact, over time evidence has mounted that reform models that ask teachers to develop their own materials and approaches are rarely implemented at all. Studies of alternative programs implemented under similar conditions find that the more highly structured and focused programs that provide specific materials and training are more likely to be implemented and effective than are less-well-specified models. ... Although there are examples of success in models lacking clear structure, the programs with the most consistent positive effects with at-risk students are those that have definite procedures and materials used in all participating schools. Effective programs provide extensive professional development. A characteristic shared by almost all of the effective programs we identified is the provision of extensive professional development and follow-up technical assistance. Few, if any, provide the classic half-day, one-time workshops that constitute the great majority of inservice programs, especially those usually provided with textbook adoptions. On the contrary, most of the successful programs we identified provide many days of inservice followed by in-class technical assistance to give teachers detailed feedback on their program implementations. Typically, teachers work with each other and with peer or expert coaches to discuss, assess, and refine their implementations. The training provided is rarely on generic strategies from which teachers pick a few ideas to add to their bags of tricks. Instead, training focuses on comprehensive strategies that replace, not just supplement, teachers' current strategies. Effective programs are disseminated by organizations that focus on the gualitv of implementation. The programs identified in their review that have been associated with consistent positive effects in many settings tend to be ones that are developed and disseminated by active, well-structured organizations that concentrate efforts on ensuring the gualitv of program implementation in all schools. These organizations, often based in universities, provide training and materials and typically create support networks among program users. 19Some examples of interveritk\u0026gt;.asbs^ffimnitaTj( iisrrgusojea^ no school is limited to these) might include the fclfeKwbg,:  Reading Recovery  After-School Resfeg Cfejfc tutoring)  Accelerated Reader  Reading Across the Curriculum  Professional development for teachers in one or more of the following areas: reader-response strategies, reciprocal teaching, the writing process, McRat, assessment strategies, ESL methodologies, adaptive strategies for inclusion, etc.  Extended-Year Program  HOSTS (Helping One Student to Succeed)  Junior Great Books  Family Literacy program  Schoolwide Independent Reading Program  Reading Is Fundamental Some examples of interventions in secondary language arts (again, no school is limited to these) are as follows:  Project AVID (to improve enrollment and success in Pre-AP and AP courses)  Reading Clinic (one-on-one tutoring)  Summer enrichment program for rising freshmen  Reading in the Content Areas  Writing Across the Curriculum  Development of a schoolwide language policy  Professional development for teachers in one or more of the following areas: reader-response strategies, reciprocal teaching, the writing process, use of learning logs, assessment strategies, ESL methodologies, adaptive strategies for inclusion, etc.  Great Books  Schoolwide Independent Reading Program Waivers An intervention may also be something that the school decides to do instead of the District program. In that case, however, the Campus Leadership Team must submit and obtain approval of a waiver. See pp. 8-9 in your Handbook for Campus Leadership Team for a copy of the regulations on waivers and pp. 57-60 for a copy of the waiver application. (Call Bonnie Lesleys office for an e-mailed template for convenience.) A waiver application must include research that will predict more success for your students than the District-established program. Examples of when a waiver is required follows: the Districts instructional language arts programs for elementary schools are ELLA and Effective 20Literacyor Success for All. If you wish to do anything else, you must secure a waiver. The districts phonemic awareness program is Animated Literacy at the kindergarten level. If you wish to do anything else, you must secure a waiver. The Districts grades 6-8 program for regular-level students is a two-period block of the Reading and Writing Workshop. If you wish to do anything else, you must secure a waiver. Schoolwide Restructuring or Reform An intervention may include a series of steps to implement a schoolwide project, such as the ones described by Dr. Steve Ross in the July 23 inservice for principals. Some examples of schoolwide change models include Boyer's The Basic School, Slavins Roots and Wings, or Great Expectations for the elementary level. Middle school schoolwide reforms include those outlined in Turning Points, SREBs Middle Grades Initiative, or Levins Accelerated Schools. Some examples of high school reforms include Sizers Coalition of Essential Schools, SREBs High Schools that Work, and the Johns Hopkins models for Talent Development High Schools. These examples are examples only, i ot recommendations for adoption. Each school should consider carefully wliich model for change would be most appropriate forthat school, whether resources are available for implementation, and whether staff and parent support can be built. More information will be provided on the options available for schoolwide change for 2000-01 planning. Title I schoolwide projects are expected to adopt such a model or to design their own, using the CSRD criteria established from research on the variables that are necessary to impact student achievement. Components of Comprehensive School Reform Programs (Obev-Porter) A comprehensive school reform program is one that integrates, in a coherent manner, all nine of the following components: 1. 2. 3. 4. Effective, research-based methods and strategies. A comprehensive school reform program employs innovative strategies and proven methods for student learning, teaching, and school management that are based on reliable research and effective practices, and have been replicated successfully in schools with diverse characteristics. Comprehensive design with aligned components. The program has a comprehensive design for effective school functioning, including instruction, assessment, classroom management, professional development, parental involvement, and school management, that aligns the schools curriculum, technology, and professional development into a schoolwide reform plan designed to enable all studentsincluding children from low-income families, children with limited-English proficiency, and children with disabilitiesto meet challenging State content and performance standards and addresses needs identified through a school needs assessment. Professional development. The program provides high quality and continuous teacher and staff professional development and training. Measurable coals and benchmarks. A comprehensive school reform program has measurable goals for student performance tied to the States challenging content and student performance standards, as those standards are implemented, and benchmarks for meeting the goals. 215. 6. 7, 8. 9. Support within the school. The program is supported by school faculty, administrators, and staff. Parental and community involvement. The program provides for the meaningful involvement of parents and the local community in planning and implementing school improvement activities. External technical support and assistance. A comprehensive reform program utilizes high-quality external support and assistance from a comprehensive school reform entity (which may be a university) with experience or expertise in schoolwide reform and improvement. Evaluation strategies. The program includes a plan for the evaluation of the implementation of school reforms and the student results achieved. Coordination of resources. The program identifies how other resources (federal, state, local, and private) available to the school will be utilized to coordinate services to support and sustain the school reform. Curriculum Mapping An intervention in 1999-2000 (but a part of your data collection and analysis after this first year) that every school should do early in the school year is the curriculum mapping required as a part of the ACSIP process:  Calendar-based curriculum mapping is a procedure for collecting a data base of the operational curriculum in a school and/or a district.  Each teacher in this initial step completes a map.  The format is consistent for each teacher but reflects the individual nature of each classroom.  Each teacher reads the entire school map as an editor when all the maps are completed.  Places where new information was gained are underlined.  Places requiring potential revision are circled.  The maps are next used in a planned alignment of the operational curriculum with the Frameworks and criterion- referenced tests. Note: Mona Briggs and Eddie McCoy are members of a team in the new School Improvement Department who will be trained and available to help you train key people in your school to conduct the required curriculum mapping. This activity very important in aligning what it is that is taught with what it is that is tested. Some of the mapping has already been done at the District level. Teachers have received copies (or will in the August Preschool Inservice) of documents that display the relationship of the District grade-level and course benchmarks to the State Curriculum Frameworks, the SAT9 objectives, and to adopted text rnaterials. The step for schools to complete includes mapping teachers lesson plans against these areas and to identify whether critical elements likely to be tested on the benchmark examinations are indeed taught before the dates of the examinations. 22Curriculum Map Content Area/Course Grade Level Page___ of Month Unit Topics/Skills Strand/Content Standard (Framework) Student Learning Expectation Standard (Framework) LRSD Benchmark 23 Alignment (from the ACSIP process): Step 1: All the teachers in the school map the subjects and courses they teach. Step 2: The Curriculum Alignment Document is used to categorize the results of the maps. Step 3: The findings of the Curriculum Alignment Document are summarized (e.g., 4 teachers are introducing\n0 teachers are teaching/assessing\n0 teachers are reviewing/maintaining\nStrand: Patterns, Algebra and Functions, Content Standard 2, Student Learning Expectation: Grades 9-12, PAF.2.1. Use equations, absolute value equations, inequalities, absolute value inequalities, and systems of equations and inequalities to solve mathematical and real-world problems. Step 4: Committees of the faculty organize curricula so that concepts in the frameworks are thoughtfully and systematically introduced, taught and assessed, and reviewed and maintained. This step is part of the schools improvement plan because it is a complex process that requires extensive committee work and faculty consensus. 24Compiling Mapping Results ... Lang. Arts Framework List all strands and student learning expectations for the appropriate grade levels in this column. Not Covered Introduced Taught \u0026amp; Assessed Reviewed/Maintained 25 The ACSIP documents outline the following actions to take in Editing, Auditing, Validating, and Creative Development Tasks: Gain information Avoid repetition Identify gaps Identify potential areas for curriculum integration Match with learner standards/benchmarks Examine for timeliness (taught before the test administration?) Edit for coherence Teachers are further encouraged to Edit for Repetitions:  Recognize the difference between repetitions and redundancy.  Adopt curriculum spiraling as a goal. To find possible areas for curriculum integration, teachers are encouraged to:  Peruse the map and circle areas for integration of content, skills, and assessment.  These areas can serve as the springboard for curriculum planning at the teacher/team/school levels. 26Step 8: Actions For each intervention, you need to outline the major steps that the school will take to implement the selected intervention. Remember to include: Steps to provide necessary professional development for successful implementation of the intervention. Include both the initial training, plus the follow-up or peer coaching or networking that are necessary to provide ongoing support of teachers. The plan must clearly show the relationship of any planned professional development to the successful implementation of a selected intervention. Steps to purchase or otherwise secure necessary resources, such as buying instructional materials, recruiting mentors, or soliciting used books appropriate for classroom libraries. Steps to put the intervention in place, such as identifying students to be targeted for special tutoring, consultations with parents, designing necessary forms, planning communications, collaborating with other staff, etc., etc. Steps to conduct formative evaluations (such as action research projects) so that you can modify or adjust quickly, if necessary, the implementation of the plan to ensure greater success. Steps to conduct a summative evaluation to determine the impact of your intervention on your goal(s). The continuous planning cycle includes four basic phases: plan, do, study, act. Then the cycle begins again. Taking a new look at the baseline data (see Step 1 in this planning guide) should be an outgrowth of your summative evaluation of the previous year's plan. complete sentences for each action statement. Begin each sentence with a verb. Some examples follow: 1. 2. 3. Enroll Ms. Jones in training to implement Reading Recovery. Conduct schoolwide parent meeting to update them on progress of implementation. Apply for a grant to purchase Accelerated Reader and ample books for program implementation. 274. Invite Pat Busbea to lirain, oz\u0026gt;wa\\7s ttfGttfhe w'hole school can support Reading Recovery, 5. Set up an action research to .Kieasure (eftectv eness of the new Animated Literacy program at the itexe'. Step 9: Person(s) RespomiWe Assign someone at your school the responsib'ifity for each action to ensure that the action step is actually implemented. Distribute leadership responsibilities, and do not assume that the only people involved are those listed. Some action steps will require committees or teams or task forces. The person listed is responsible for convening that group. Remember to include parents, as appropriate, in these groups. Step 10: Timeline Indicate the approximate time that the action is to start and when it should be fully implemented. An agenda item for the Campus Leadership Team is to monitor implementation of the plan and to conduct formative evaluations of the quality of the implementation. Interventions designed to impact the spring test results should, obviously, be in place when school starts for maximum impact. Step 11: Resources Identify the necessary new resources required to implement your intervention. Some examples follow: $14,000 for professional development $10,000 for purchase of classroom libraries 8 volunteers to assist with independent reading program 40 mentors for at-risk students Reassignment of Title I aide to parent liaison responsibilities $3000 for teacher pay to run the after-school Reading Clinic Step 12: Budget Indicate how you plan to pay for any required costs under the appropriate column. You can mix and match your funds as necessary. Examples of a budget to purchase classroom libraries follow: District $500 Title I $8000 APIG $1500 Note 1. The school must total all the entries of the three columns when the plan in complete. 28The District column cannot exceed the amount of money in your school budget for the specified categories of expenditures. The total of all the Title I expenditures must be no greater than your schools Title I allocation. The total of all the entries under APIG must not exceed your APIG grant. If a school has other sources of money to fund its interventions, then a note should be made on the form to indicate the source of the other funds, such as PTA, CSRD grant, etc. Note 2: Title I schools specifically (but recommended for all schools as well) are required to include the following minimums in their budgets:  1 % of the total Title I allocation must be spent on parent involvement  10% of the total Title I allocation must be spent on professional development that is clearly related to the achievement of your school goals and to the planned interventions. step 13: Plan Evaluation Planning how you will evaluate your plan is a critically important step in the planning cycle. You must plan for both formative and summative evaluations. Formative Evaluations Formative evaluations of the quality of your plans implementation should be conducted as a regular part of the business of the Campus Leadership Team.  Is implementation occurring according to the planned timelines?  Are the people assigned responsibility carrying through?  What evidence (surveys, observations, anecdotes, action research, interim student achievement data such as grades, CRT scores, etc.) is there that the intervention is working?  Are resources adequate?  Do formative data indicate a need for modifications or adjustments to the plan?  How well does everyone (teachers, parents, community, students, etc.) understand the intervention? How well are you communicating?  What next steps are suggested?  What are you learning about change and implementation of other interventions?  What additional professional development do you need to be more effective? 29What is the evidence that you will achieve your benchmark goal? Are you doing whatever it takes to get the desired results? (Remember Dr.Terrence Roberts levels of commitment? We cant just think about it, or try, or do what we can. We must do whatever it takes.) Summative Evaluation Summarize your implementation process of each intervention. Outline what concluded to be strengths and weaknesses in the implementation. Give recommendations for next year. you Summarize the impact of each intervention on student achievement. Did you achieve your benchmarks? Is there a preponderance of evidence that you made a difference with your intervention? 30Quality Indicators for Elementary Schools Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1990-00 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 4 4 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 4 4 State Indicators Tier I Performance on State Mandated Criterion- Referenced Grade 4 Literacy Test Performance on State Mandated Criterion- Referenced Grade 4 Mathematics Test Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety Performance on State- Mandated Criterion Referenced Grade 4 Literacy Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Grade 4 Mathematics Test Goal (Definition) 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%.__________________________________ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually._______ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts.___________________________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 32 Baseline Year Grade Levels 1999-00 K-5 School-Selected Indicators Tier II (Select five.) Average Daily Attendance Goal (Definition) Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 1999-00 K-5 1999-00 K-5 Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher____________ Professional Development Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate. ___________________ Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 1999-00 K-5 School Safety 1999-00 K-5 Other School Selected Indicators Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually.______________________ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. _________ Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. LRSD Elementary School Quality indicators Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) 1999-00 K Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy Test 90% of a schools kindergarten students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 1999-00 K Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy Test 1999-00 1 Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test The percent of kindergarten students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. _________ ____________ 90% of a schools grade 1 students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy._______________ 33 Baseline Year 1999-00 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test The percent of grade 1 students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.___________ 65% of a schools students in every subgroup of race and gender will perform at or above the 50'^ percentile in reading._______ The percent of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50' percentile will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.____________________________ At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.____________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.___________ 65% of a schools students shall perform at or above the SO' percentile in grade 5 mathematics. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 34 Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade Levels 5 5 5 5 5 2-5 2-5 2-5 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9. the Norm-Referenced Ma^ematics Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SATO, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, the Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test The percent of students performing at or above the 50**' percentile in grade 5 mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________ At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics.__________________________ The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics.__________________________ The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grades 2-5 reading each semester._________________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in grades 2-5 reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester.________ The percent of students demonstrating gains from the grades 2-5 reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year._____________ Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 35 Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) 1999-00 2-5 1999-00 2-5 1999-00 2-5 Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grades 2-5 mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in grades 2-5 mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the grades 2-5 mathematics pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 36 Quality Indicators for Middle Schools Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 6 1999-00 8 2001-02 6 1999-00 8 2001-02 7 (Dunbar) or 8 2001-02 8 (Dunbar) 1999-00 7-8 State Indicators Tier I Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________ _______ School Dropout Goal (Definition) 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficienf level in grade 6 reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 8 reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 6 mathematics. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in grade 8 mathematics. 100% of a schools grade 7 or 8 students who complete Algebra I shall perform at or above the proficient level. 100% of a schools grade 8 students who complete Geometry shall perform at or above the proficient level. 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 Average Daily Attendance________ Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12*^ grade. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%._____________ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 37 Baseline Year Grade Levels 1999-00 6-8 State Indicators Tier I Professional Development Goal (Definition) Your Results 1999-00 6-8 School Safety 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development.______________ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 6 State-Mandated Indicators Tier II Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test. Goal (Definition) Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 1999-00 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test. 2001-02 6 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. 1999-00 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.___________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.___________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficienf level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 38 Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 7 (Dunbar) or 8 2001-02 8 (Dunbar) State-Mandated Indicators Tier II ___________ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test. Goal (Definition) Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score Baseline Year Grade Levels 1999-00 6-8 School-Selected Indicators Tier II (Select five.) Drop-outs 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 1999-00 6-8 Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher____________ Professional Development 1999-00 6-8 School Safety 6-8 Other School Selected Indicators The percent of students completing Algebra I performing at or above the proficient' level will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of students completing Geometry performing at or above the \"proficient level will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Goal (Definition) Secondary schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12**^ grade._________________ Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate. Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of .\"noroved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and jyiolent acts. Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 39 LRSD Middle School Quality Indicators Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Your Results Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9. a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test 65% of a schools students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50**' percentile in reading._______ The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the SO* percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a school's students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.____________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a schools students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50'*' percentile in mathematics. Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 40 Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade Levels 7 7 7 7 7 6-8 6-8 6-8 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SATO, Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test a Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion Referenced Reading Test The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50^ percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.____________________________ At least 30% of a school's students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics.________________________ The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________ At least 90% of a school's students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a school's students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the \"proficient level in reading each semester.________________________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester._________ The percent of students demonstrating gains from the reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year.___________ Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 1 41 Baseline Year 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Grade Levels 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Enrollment in Pre-AP Courses Enrollment in Pre-AP Courses Enrollment in Algebra I by Grade 8 Enrollment in Algebra I by Grade 8 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester.________ The percent of students demonstrating gains from the mathematics pre-test to the posttest will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year._________________________ 65% of a middle schools students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course each year.________________________________ _ The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a middle schools students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8.___________ The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 42 Quality Indicators for High Schools Baseline Year 2001-02 2001-02 2001-02 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Grade Levels 9-12 9-12 11 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 State Indicators Tier I Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Algebra I Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Geometry Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Algebra I Test_______ ________ School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher_________ Professional Development School Safety Goal (Definition) 'P-' 100% of a high schools students shall perform at or above the proficienf level in Algebra I. 100% of a high schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. 100% of a high schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Reading and Writing Literacy. At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12** grade. Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%._________________________________ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually._______ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 43 Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 11 State-Mandated Indicators Tier II________________ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Algebra I Test Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Geometry Test_________________ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Literacy Test Goal (Definition) The percent of students performing at or above the proficienf level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient\" level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 9-12 School-Selected Indicators Tier II (Select five.) Drop-outs Goal (Definition) 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 9-12 2001-02 9-12 Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development High schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12* grade.________________ Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate.___________________ ____ Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Your Results Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 44 Baseline Year Grade Levels 2001-02 9-12 9-12 I__ . School-Selected Indicators Tier II (Select five.) School Safety Other School Selected Indicators L-RSD High School Quality Indicators Baseline Year Grade Levels LRSD Indicators 1998-99 10 1998-99 10 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test 1998-99 10 1998-99 10 Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test 1998-99 10 Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Goal (Definition) Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts.___________________________ Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Goal (Definition) 65% of a schools students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50**^ percentile in reading._______ The percent of students performing at or above the 50' percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year._____________________________ At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.___________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading Your Results Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 45 Baseline Year 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 Grade Levels 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9-11 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Reading Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Mathematics Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.____________ 65% of a schools students in every subgroup of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50*^ percentile in mathematics. The percent of students performing at or above the 50**' percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year.________________________ At least 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics.___________________________ The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year._________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics.___________________________ The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year._________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient\" level in reading each semester. Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score 46 Baseline Year 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 1998-99 1998-99 2002-03 2002-03 Grade Levels 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-12 9-12 12 12 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Reading Test Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test_________________ Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test______________ Performance on District- Adopted Criterion- Referenced Mathematics Test Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses Honors Seal on High School Diploma Honors Seal on High School Diploma Your Results Growth Goal Your Growth Your Score The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester.____________________ The percent of students demonstrating gains from the reading pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. _______________________________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester.________ The percent of students demonstrating gains from the mathematics pre-test to the posttest will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year._________________________ 65% of a high schools students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year._____________________________ The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a high schools students will complete the requirements to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas.__________________________ The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 47 Baseline Year 1998-99 Grade Levels 11-12 LRSD Indicators Goal (Definition) Your Results Growth Goal Taking the ACT 1998-99 1998-99 11-12 11-12 Taking the ACT Performance on the ACT Performance on the ACT 1998-99 11-12 1998-99 11-12 1998-99 11-12 Taking Advanced Placement Examinations Taking Advanced Placement Examinations 1998-99 11-12 1998-99 11-12 Performance on Advanced Placement Examinations Performance on Advanced Placement Examinations 65% of a high schools students will take the ACT. The percent of students taking the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a high schools students who take the ACT will earn a score of at least 19. The percent of students earning a score of 19 or above on the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each year._________________ 65% of a high schools graduates will take at least one AP examination. The percent of students taking at least one AP examination will meet or exceed the trend goal each year._________________________ 90% of a high schools students taking AP examinations will score a 3 or above. Your Growth Your Score 1998-99 12 Completion of Graduation Requirements 1998-99 12 Completion of Graduation Requirements The percent of a high school's students earning a score of 3 or above on AP examinations will meet or exceed the trend goal each year._________________________ 100% of a high schools seniors will complete all the graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony. The percent of seniors meeting all graduation requirements prior to participation in the graduation ceremony will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 48 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 February 7, 2000 TO FROM: Everyone r. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT\nSchool Improvement If you are on track with your School Improvement Plan, you have gathered all 5?? available data from the first semester to conduct a formative evaluation of your progress. (See Chapter 13 in Guidelines to School Improvement Planning). Its also time to start making decisions about next years plan. The attached ERS publication on School Improvement is a good one to share with your CLT and even the whole faculty. You can use it to measure where you are - and to determine what you may need to do next. r Attachment BAL/rcm 1I   School Improvement: Factors Leading to Success or Failure I  ss Education leaders in schools across the country are asking: How can we increase the levels of learning for all our students? Many of them are considering externally developed, comprehensive models of school improvement. Others are developing their own schoolwide improvement models. Still others are identifying and addressing needs for improvement in specific subjects or skills. Whatever the approach, and despite the hard work of those involved, school improvement efforts do not always succeed. But research and experience from schools and districts engaged in school improvement provide valuable guidance that can increase the chances of success. f^C^I This ERS Informed Educator discusses the importance of planning and selfstudy in implementing school improvement efforts. It describes several major studies that provide valuable information about what factors lead to the success or failure of school improvement efforts. Knowing about these factors can help you ensure that your school or school districts school improvement efforts achieve their goalhigher student achievement. Developing a Roadmap Stories of successfill school improvement sound a common themi the importance of using data during both planning and implementation. The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory recommends:  collecting, analyzing, and using data to Inform decision making throughout the improvement process\n using a variety of research tools and a flexible approach to accommodate different situations and research questions\n looking at baseline data, monitoring the improvement process, and studying impacts\nand  forming a small research team comprising staff, community members, and students, which regularly collects data (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory 1999). Participants in the school improvement process should use data and information to discuss progress on a regular basis, and should make changes to the original plan as needed. In its report Turning Around Low-Performing Schools, the U.S. Department of Education talks about why it is so important to use data to support school improvement efforts. Specifically, Measuring progress and setting standards and analyzing the information to identify patterns of failure and their causes enables schools and districts to diagnose low performance and attack specific problems with concrete solutions (1998,30). School Readiness for Change Robert Slavin, a long-time researcher on school improvement, cautions schools and districts to consider seriously another element that can have a profound impact on school improvement efforts school readiness for change. Although the staff in some schools maybe ready to effectively engage in their own school improvement efforts -with little assistance, other schools may need substantial and ongoing support to develop and implement their plans successfully. Slavin also identifies a third category of schools those in which even the most heroic attempts at reform are doomed to failure. Schools of this type may have recently lost key staff, may suffer from poor relationships among staff, or may have lost funding. Improvement efforts in these schools 2000 Clarendon Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22201 Phone: (703) 243-2100  Fax: (703) 243-5971  www.ers.org Copyright 1999 Educational Research Service. Reproduced with permission. ILGUCiLiUiicLi ikCiCd-ivix uctviuc S^faddressing the basic problems (1997, ^ftom lini -while a school may need ^Ossendal to take a realistic view of as need. feat Affect the Success of B Implementation ffiy,. major studies conducted in recent a rich source of information about the ^at lead to the success or failure of school efforts. In this section, we summarize jof several of these studies. Many of the blap and reinforce each other. pof the Special Strategies Studies Eand Stringfield, in Ten Promising Pra- ^'Jucating Ail Children, observed that imple- Bbf reform programs varied greatly among ae'fent sites studied in the federally con- peial Strati jies studies. The researchers i^ftat many of these programs can work is jiffice that one or more will work at a speafic i\u0026amp;jrtce Ba particular team of teachers and adminis- ^\nNone of these programs can be made ^?proof, school-proof, or district-proof The which the program was implemented had aeiil of power to facilitate or impede its Mutation (1997,127-128). on the experiences of the research teams S$tudied, the researchers identified the foists that were key in most successfill school Kht efforts: ffs^c perception of local strengths and areas ^of improvement, combined with clear at were understood and embraced by fpn of persons who would be affected by gsion in selecting the program and mj iout the whole process of implementation, jhess of members of the school, district. immunity to undertake the reforms. ^g access to long-term, program-specific Kal assistance and support from beyond the (that is, from external program developers ^yersity collaborators). act and state commitment to ongoing staff ropment supporting the school Improvement The context in which the program was implemented had a great deal of power to facilitate or impede its implementation. Rebecca Herman and Sam Stringfield, 1997  The schools and districts ability to obtain and maintain sufficient fiscal support.  A commitment by district and school administrators to maintain the program through a sometimes turbulent implementation stage and to give the program time to have an impact. This last point was especially critical. The researchers concluded that, while it is important to consider accountability, the focus on outcomes must be balanced with patience for process. When a school or system discontinued one program and substituted another without providing strong evidence of cost savings or program effectiveness, teachers tended to become cynical about investing their energy in new programs (Herman and Stringfield 1997,127-130). Findings of the Study of Effective Schools Programs A 1995 report generated as part of a Congressionally mandated study of Effective Schools programs and other school-based reforms identified features common to schools successfriUy engaged in reform. As part of the study, administrators in a sample of 1,550 districts were asked to respond to a mail survey containing questions about the status of comprehensive school-level improvement efforts. The study design also included Intensive site visits to 32 schools, in which the researchers observed what was really happening in schools that considered themselves involved with comprehensive reform (QueUmalz et al. 1995). The research team used their observations in the 32 schools to develop what they termed key features of successfrd reform strategies. These features provide valuable direction for schools beginning their comprehensive reform efforts, no matter what model they decide to adopt. In general, the successful school-based reforms had three key features\n-2-ft: i  Challenging learning experiences for all I students. This feature tended to emerge from I four coordinated elements: high teacher I expectations\nchallenging curricula\nexploration of \\ a variety of alternative configurations of students L and teachers\nand exploration of alternative 5 assessment methods.  A school culture that nurtured staff collaboration and participation in decision making. The most successfill school-based reforms took place in schools that created cultures of collegiality by finding ways for staff and the community to work together on significant changes needed in their schools. Equally important to shared decision making was the reformulation of the roles and authority exercised by teachers and administrators.  Meaningful opportunities for professional growth. In the successfill schools, teachers set staff development priorities keyed to their vision of the reform goals in their schools. Typically, staff development topics related to technical areas such as curriculum, instruction, and assessment, or to managerial areas such as schoolwide planning or collaborative decision making. In some instances, teacher teams developed strategic plans that allowed sustained, coherent immersion in an area. Forsaking a grab bag of one-session workshops, teachers sought the expertise and time necessary to acquire, implement, and reflect on innovations on an ongoing basis. Study of Six Benchmark Schools In a recent study reporting his observations of six schools that were demonstrating success -with their . school improvement efforts, Gordon Cawelti found that each of the six schools follows a different path: \u0026amp;fheir educational programs and approaches vary greatly. But aU focus on student achievement as an sVend goal (1999, 3). Cawelti identified six additional chaA racteristicz*sf* that provizdn e Tvroa 1l1u1 ao brliel icnsii zgrhritT rftoTr* cscz*hooz\"ol leaders involved with school improvement efforts:  There is a focus on clear standards and improving results.  Teamwork is a way of life and helps ensure ac-u countability. People in these teams meet reguand solve problems. larly to examine assessment results and plan instruction based on these results, to plan cooperative instructional activities, and to communicate n  The principal is a strong educational leader. These six schools are led by principals who know that they must focus on the whole system, that they must facilitate the work of others, and that they must solve many problems every day.  Staff members are committed to helping all students achieve. These teachers spend e?rtra time working with students and planning to make the school better.n  Multiple changes are made to improve the instructional life of students, and these changes are sustained over time. These six schools have not raised achievement by changing just one factor, such as schedule, teaching methods, or technology. Substantial improvement comes when a school is able to undertake several changes in an organized fashion and sustain and perfect them n over a period of at least three to five years (Cawelti 1999,63-65). Suggestions from the Education C ommis-sion of the States: Clear and Continuous Communication Is a Key The Education Commission of the States, in its publication Listen, Discuss, and Act: Parents and Teachers' Views on Education Reform, provides suggestions for schools and districts interested in engaging the entire school community in their efforts to improve student achievement. Three key suggestions include:  Communicate well with teachers. The experience of schools and districts across the country clearly shows that if teachers, are not informed and active participants in the process, reform efforts win fail. Teachers who are satisfied with the basic ideas of a reform effort may have enormous frustrations with the way the effort is implemented. Give teachers a voice in the process treat them as partners with the school and district in the reform. Also, let them know up front how much time any changes will involve, what the effect on their work will be, and what they can expect to happen.  Be clear about what it means to set high standards for aU students, and what it will take to meet them. Survey and focus group results strongly suggest that parents and teachers are more inclined to support a goal of improving success for all students rather than buying into the notion that all children can learn at high -3- Lducationai Kesearcn dervice Ilevels. They believe the goal of having all stu- ^dents achieve at stellar levels is counterproductive Sand unrealistic. In other words, higher standards Kfor all receive more support than high standards K\u0026amp;r all. Agendas that include setting high stan- fedards also need to spell out clearly who set the Bistandards and what resources (including instruc- Etion, materials, and time) wiU be provided to help c*' 'children meet them. Show how new ideas enhance, rather than re- 1 place, the old ones. This research shows that ^parents and educators are primed for school re- sform, but they worry that the innovations are not B feasible or wiU go too far. They recognize the K peed for students to go beyond the basics and Rjeam more complex skUls, but fear that basics are fe hot being taught adequately. When you are intro- fc during something new, show how it works with ^'what is already there. For instance, There will  be portfolios and other demonstrations of stu- fedent work, along with more traditional standard- ^tzed tests. Bridge the gap between peoples expeFA riences and expectations and the changes being ^implemented, then show how the changes im- prove learning for students. ^Applying these guideUnes for communication iSfifig the complex processes of selecting and imple- 's [enbng a comprehensive model for school improveJ I ^t, one that wiU affect teachers, students, and the ^^rnunity at large, should be considered as impor- ^mas what goes on day-to-day at the school site. K -4 f t^-Performing Texas Schools Kh summarizing his observations of schools that ive/experienced success with school improvement, \u0026gt;nnson identifies three broad groups of factors that Khlve a profound impact on a schools efforts, ^e are: ^^ttitudes, expectations, and reasons. Successful - ^programs are characterized by a wiUingness to ^question current practices, chaUenge conven- ^tional wisdom, and explore every opportunity for improving teaching and learning...the focus is on ^improving instruction in every aspect of each ^students school experience. ^Comprehensive, focused, meaningful planning. g^This must include an in-depth assessment of i^sgengths and needs, the estabUshment of chal- ^fenging and measurable goals, and an intensive ^Kearch for options that might lead the school from current levels of performance to the challenging goals articulated in the planning process.  Commitment to continuous improvement. This must include a sense of ownership by aU staff in every aspect of the plan, the development of systems for regularly gauging progress, and systems for celebrating success. Successful programs are characterized by a willingness to question current practices, challenge conventional wisdom, and explore every opportunity for improving teaching and learning. Joseph F. Johnson, 1997 In Johnsons view, the manner in which principals, teachers, parents, and other school leaders address these factors may substantially influence whether their schoolwide program wiU bring focus and power to academic reform efforts (1997, online). Examples of Promising School Improvement Efforts The Memphis City Schools Experience Memphis City Schools has, for the past few years, provided a case study of schools in the midst of reform. As of spring 1995,45 of the Memphis schools had begun implementation of New American Schools designs, with six different designs represented. Researchers studying first-year implementation of the programs in these schools concluded that:  AU of the restructuring efforts required a great deal of energy, time, and commitment from the teachers, administrators, and school community.  Restructuring initiatives that provided classroom materials and guideUnes for instruction generaUy started faster than designs emphasizing teacher- developed materials.  Issues of focused leadership and ongoing, focused professional development appeared Ukely to determine substantial parts of the long-term successes of the schools. However, relative to what -4-it 1 t: V, Educational Research Service L might be called reasonable progress, the re- L searchers concluded that the Memphis start-up were successful, with no t, implementations J unresolvable problems (CRESPAR 1997). She Clover Park Experience r The Clover Park School District outside Tacoma, Washington began its journey of change in 1995. \"pie district took a careful and comprehensive look at fwhat factors contributed to the success of the effort, information about the role of the school board and lientral office in encouraging, promoting, and sup- ^^orting change at the school level provides valuable ^^guidance to other school districts. These were the guidelines used to direct district-level involvement SB.3 ^and activity: at W' W\nI B ?* '^J:-  -sj?\n' Board members set initial goals and had frequent and significant opportunities to remain informed about the process of implementation and school reform. All staff understood and were committed to beliefs driving the comprehensive reform effort first and foremost that all children can and will learn. Decisions were required to be based on data and research. ' District money was reallocated to support comprehensive reform.  A comprehensive needs assessment process that promoted collaboration, focused on data and research, and worked well with district priorities was designed and supported.  District structures responsive to the needs of schools were put in place.  Hiring and transfer procedures ensured a good match between schools and staff.  During the change planning process, district staff got to know principals well and supported them as they helped them to provide strong leadership at their schools.  District staff learned to talk the talk of the individual school. Staff development was tailored to individual school needs and the requirements of would not have been as pervasive or as positive (Davis, Sagmiller, and Hagans undated). Hugh Burkette, Clover Park superintendent, talks about some lessons he has learned from the process of supporting implementation of schoolwide improvement in the districts schools. He says:  Comprehensive school reform has to be approached in a thoughtful way. We had to use a process that passed the teacher-test of work worth doing. The self-study process they embraced took timeall yearbut it gave us powerful results. Our staffs collected so much data about their schools. They looked at it hard\nthey identified needs\nthey did the research about what works, what met the needs of their kids. They didnt skip steps. And when they were done with their process, each staff was ready... to make an organized change.  A national model cannot be your whole school reform...You get different parts and have to backfill where the model doesnt address significant school needs. Models dont answer all of the questions, or address all of the needs. They dont fix everything.  Our teachers and staff taught me that every school is unique. At the same time, we insist that the models be Implemented as designed. Their success is based on all of the component parts being implemented.  Establish structures at the district level that help schools stay focused. All of our schools... have developed comprehensive school plans....Because each goal is followed by a series of concrete strategies with timelines and assessment measures, there is no such thing as the failure of a plan. If one or the other strategy doesnt work, our schools go back and revise the strategies. They try again (1998, 7-11). i the specific reform model. In the view of observers of the Clover Park pro- 1 cess, without clear direction from the board and superintendent, and active support of district staff. W these changes (in student achievement) most likely Anticipating and Dealing with the Impact of Change Change is not easy, even when those involved are committed to making the effort. In Implementing Schoolwide Projects: An Idea Book for Educators, the authors talk of the challenges of change and note: Practitioners confront considerable obstacles as they design and implement more coherent educational services... Success stories do not unfold without false starts, and the routes to improvement are -5-\\s/  circuitous (Pechman and Fiester 1994). They go on to identify challenges that persistently confronted schools involved in implementation of schoolwide improvement:  Adequate Time to Learn New Roles. The transition to a schoolwide project involves introducing new and expanded roles, academic expectations, and management structures. Even new resources require that long-standing practices be adjusted. These changes can be disconcerting or overwhelming to some members of the school community. Even with broad support, new initiatives can be tricky to coordinate smoothly.  Communication and Involvement. Without exception, schoolwide project planners said that project success is direcdy related to the quality of communication among planners and the degree to which teachers are partners in planning and implementation. The biggest pitfail is lack of communication, remarked a principal whose school is in its second project cycle.  Adequate Preparation for New Resources. Successfill school-wide projects require extensive training of all teachers in uses of technology, new content and methods, and teaching styles.  Including Parents and the Community. Organizers of schoolwdde projects find that it is not enough to improve instruction, curricula, or materials. Success for the project depends on support from parents, businesses, special-interest groups, and fraternal organizations.  Awareness of Achievement Variability. Despite the strong academic programs and comprehensive assistance that schoolwide projects offer children, student performance on standardized tests can fluctuate from year to year. Dips in achieve- ment in schoolwide projects that are working well are rarely unexpected. Teachers know when a group of students have confronted difficulties, and the teachers anticipate performance below their goals. However, it is significant that these schools have structures that allow staff to adjust the program as needed.  Stabilizing Change. The most consistent threat to schoolwide project success is the change in leadership that occurs all too often and too early in the life of many projects. It is not uncommon for enthusiastic district managers, seeing the success of a creative leader in initiating a schoolwide project, to move that leader into a new administrative slot well before the new initiatives stabilize, sometimes as soon as only one or two years after a project gets under way. (Pechman and Fiester 1994). The Importance of Leadership No discussion of factors that affect school change efforts would be complete wdthout attention to the crucial, yet difficult role that leadership plays. Tony Trujillo, superintendent of the Ysleta School District in Texas, highlights a key component of this role in supporting school improvement: My job is to get ordinary people to do extraordinary things (Ragland et al. 1999,18). How do leaders accomplish this role? In her discussion of leadership characteristics that facilitate school change, Mendez-Morse identifies six characteristics of successful leaders of educational change:  vision, specifically that students learning is of primary importance\n believing schools are for learning\n valuing the professional contributions of staff, relating well to people, and able to foster collaborative relationships\n being a skilled communicator and listener, someone who can articulate a vision and communicate that shared vision to all in the school community\n acting proactively. Initiating action as well as anticipating and recognizing aspects of the environment that might interfere with efforts to carry out the mission\n_  taking risks but not carelessly or thoughtlessly\nencouraging others to be risk takers by providing a safe environment (1999). Participants in several U.S. Department of Education focus groups agreed with the importance of vision and v^ues, and identified the school leader as key to maintaining the vision during the often difficult process of school change: These leaders seldom claim to have invented the vision or the underlying values and beliefs\ninstead, they perceive themselves to be keepers of the dream. They embrace it wholeheartedly and make sure that everyone else does too...Developing and  maintaining the vision challenges a leaders ability to determine how well what is happening matches reasonable expectations at a given stage of implementation. In addition, when faced with problems, effective leaders see multiple solutions that preserve the spirit of the vision. They find it important to -6-Lducaiionai x\\esearcn Service   T study the nature of vision and recognize the stages of its development...Although the details of participants visions varied, each put students squarely in the center (U.S. Department of Education 1996). Hugh Burkette, the Clover Park superintendent, adds one additional responsibility for a leader of change: Leadership means being relentless. Being relentless means being single-minded and purposeful... Of every action and every decision we ask a single question: how does this act support increased student achievement?...! cant emphasize to you enough the power of beUef in providing leadership (1998). Summary In the current climate of change and reform, schools and districts across the nation are engaged in school Improvement efforts. These efforts may be comprehensive and school-wide, or they may be more narrowly aimed at specific areas. It is important to recognize that school improvement is a complex process, and that even a well-designed approach can fail unless school leaders put in place the conditions that support its success. This ERS Informed Educator has provided an overview of factors that can contribute to the success or failure of school improvement, based on research and experience. By incorporating an understanding of these factors into their planning, educators can focus their efforts so that their hard work and collaboration result in significant progress towards the goal of increased learning for aU students. Sources Burkette, Hugh E. 1998. Making Comprehensive School Reform Work. Presentation at Improving Americas Schools Regional Conference (Portland, OR): October 21, 1998. Cawelti, Gordon. 1999. Portraits of Six Benchmark Schools: Diverse Approaches to Improving Student Achievement. Arlington, VA\nEducational Research Service. CRESPAR. 1997. Scaling Up: The New American Schools in Memphis. Johns Hopkins University and Howard University: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk. Online. (September 1997). http\n//scov.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/septl997page07.html. Davis, Deborah, Kay SagmiUer, and Rex Hagans. Undated. Implementing School Reform Models: The Clover Park Experience. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Online, -www.nwrel.org/csrdp/ clover.html. Education Commission of the States. 1996. Listen, Discuss, and Act: Parents and Teachers Views on Education Reform. Denver, CO: Author. Hetman, Rebecca, and Sam Stringfield. 1997. Ten Promising Programs for EducatingAl! Children: Evidence of Impact. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Johnson, Joseph. E, Jr. Promising Practices: Creating School-wide Programs that Make a Difference. 1997. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center, The University of Texas at Austin. Online, http://www.starcenter.org/ptomise/ schppromise.htm. Lake, Robin J., et al. 1999. Making Standards Work: Active Voices, Focused Learning. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education. New American Schools. 1998. Blueprints for School Success: A Guide to New American Schools Designs. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. 1999. Self- Study. Portland, OR\nAuthor. Online, http:// www.nwrel.org/ scpd/natspec/self. html. Mendez-Morse, Sylvia. 1999. Leadership Characteristics that Facilitate School Change. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational development Laboratory. Online, http:// www.sedl.org/change/leadership/welcome.html. Ohio Department of Education. 1999. Transforming Learning Communities: A Research Project on School Change. Columbus, OH: Author. Online, http\n// schoolimptovement.ode.ohio.gov/ tic/ default.html. Pechman, E., and L. Fiestet 1994. Implementing Schoolwide Projects: An Idea Book for Educators. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service. Online, http:// www.ed.gov/pubs/SchlProj. Quellmalz, Edys, et al. 1995. School-Based Reform. Lessons from a National Study: A Guide for School Reform Teams. Menlo Park, CA\nSRI International. Online. http://'www.ed.gov/pubs/Reform/pt2a.html. Ragland, Mary A. et al. 1999. Urgency, Responsibility, Efficiency: Preliminary Findings of a Study of High-Performing Texas School Districts. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana - Center, The University of Texas at Austin. Richardson, Joan. 1998. Data Provides Answers for Student Learning. Results (October 1998): 1,6-7. Schaffer, Eugene C., Pamela S. Nesselrodt, and Samuel C. Stringfield. 1997. Impediments to Reform: An Analysis of Destabilizing Issues in Ten Promising Programs. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Slavin, Robert E. Undated. Sand, Bricks, and Seeds: School Change Strategies and Readiness for Reform. Baltimore, MD\nCenter for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. Online. www.successforaU/ sandbrickhtm. Talley, Susan. 1999. Perpectives: What Does It Take to Reform a Low-Performing School? From At-Risk to Excellence (Spring 1999): 2-3. U.S. Department of Education. 1996. The Role of Leadership in Sustaining School Reform: Voices from the Field. Online. (July 1996). http://'www.ed.gov/pubs/ Leadership. U.S. Department of Education. 1998. Turning Around Low-Performing schools: A Guide for State and Local Leaders. Washington, DC: Author, 1998. I L -7- to Educational Research Service IO' oi More Information on Factors that Contribute to the Access of School Improvement Efforts info-Files on related topics. The following are just a few of the ER5 Info-Files on topics related to change Wschool improvement. Each ERS Info-File contains 70-100 pages of articles from professional journals. i ^maries of research studies, and related literature concerning th^topic, plus an annotared bibliography that deludes an ERIC-CIJE search. Base price per Info-File: $32.00. ERS Comprehensive subscriber price: $16.00. fo Individual subscriber price\n$24.00. To order, contact Educational Research Service, 2000 Clarendon ^iilevard, Arlington, VA 22201. Phone: (800) 791-9308. Fax\n(800) 791-9309. Or order online through the ERS ^eb site, wvw.ers.org. Add the greater of $3.50 or 10% of total purchase price for postage and handling. Phone Visa, MasterCard, or American Express. f A ^d Web site orders accepted with purchase order number or School Restructuring (#IE-194). Provides various perspectives on efforts to change education, including examinations of successes and failures in school reform, why reform efforts succeed or fail, school staff opinion about change efforts, and how to facilitate reform. . Strategies for Educational Change (#IE-244). Reviews models for creating change in schools\nbarriers to change\nfostering a culture/climate that facilitates change\nroles for school administrators in bringing change to their schools\nand sustaining changes in schools. 'About ERS Educational Research Service (ERS) is the nonprofit foundation serving the research and information needs of education leaders and the public. ERS ^^Eprovides objective, accurate, and up-to-date research ' and information for local school and school district decisions. .^ ERS, established in 1973, is sponsored by seven ACnational associations of school administrators: ft  American Association of School Administrators  American Association of School Personnel Administrators  Association of School Business Officials  Council of Chief State School Officers  National Association of Elementary School Principals National Association of Secondary School Principals National School Public Relations Association. The Informed Educator Series 4^-. Educational Research Serrdee prepares the publica- tions in The Informed Educator series to provide busy education leaders with concise, yet comprehensive overviews of the most current research and informa- V tion on topics of priority concern in education. Each publication in this series is designed to keep education leadersincluding central-office administrators, principals, curriculum specialists, teachers, and othersup to date on a leading or emerging issue in education, enabling them to make the best decisions for the children and youth they serve. Prepared by the ERS staff, publications in The Informed Educator series are intended to provide an objective, comprehensive summary of research and opinion appearing in the current literature. The inclusion of any specific assertion or opinion here is not intended to imply approval or endorsement by Educational Research Service or any ERS sponsoring organization. Other topics in The Informed Educator series include\n Helping Students Deal with Conflict and Anger  Curriculum Integration  Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice  Productive Communication with Parents  Ability Grouping: Ejfects and Alternatives  Integrating Technology into the Curriculum  and more! Ordering Information\nStock No. IE-348. Base price per copy\n$9.60. Comprehensive subscriber price: $4.80. --------- available.Schooldistrictsmayalsopurchaseacamera- ready reproducible, which includes unlimited reproduction rights within the district. In addition, Individu^ suD- scriptions for standing orders for each new publication in The Informed Educator series are available. For infor- Individual subscriber price: $7.20. Quantity discounts are mation, contact ERS Member Services Information Center, 2000 Clarendon Boulevard, Arlington, VA 222U1. Phone:(800) 791-9308. Fax: (800) 791-9309. E-mail: msic@ers.org. Web site: www.ers.org -8-Analysis of Achievement Level Tests, Spring 2000 Little Rock School District School Badgett Interpretations _____________________________________ Growth from grade 2 to 3 higher than District average in all three test areas Growth from grade 3 to 4 Math higher than District average Grade 3 seems strongest: higher than average gains in all three tests from grade 2 Grade 5 seems weakest: declines in all three tests from grade 4 Scores below LRSD average in all areas #35 in LRSD in Grade 2 Reading, Language, and Math #35 in LRSD in Grade 5 Reading, Language, and Math Average total growth points (76) Grade 2 to 5 Reading = 26 points Grade 2 to 5 Language = 22 points Grade 2 to 5 Math = 28 points Mathematics: Grade 223 points below the national median Grade 310 points below Grade 47 points below Grade 517 points below Language: Grade 220 points below national median Grade 32 points below Grade 47 points below Grade 514 points below Reading: Grade 233 points below national median Grade 32 points below Grade 47 points below Grade 518 points below 1 School Bale Interpretations_________________________________________ Growth from grade 2 to 3 higher than District average in all three test areas Growth from grade 4 to 5 Math higher than District average Grade 4 seems weakest: less than average growth in all three areas Scores higher than LRSD averages in Grades 2 and 3 Language and in Grades 2-3 Reading #33 in LRSD in Grade 5 Reading Way below average (62) in total growth points Grade 2 to 5 Reading = 17 points Grade 2 to 5 Language = 18 points Grade 2 to 5 Math = 27 points Mathematics: Grade 212 points below national median Grade 37 points below Grade 410 points below Grade 510 points below Language: Grade 25 points below national median Grade 3AT the national median Grade 48 points below Grade 511 points below Reading: Grade 211 points below national median Grade 36 points below Grade 49 points below Grade 514 points below 2 School Baseline Success for All Interpretations_________________________________________ Growth from grade 2 to 3 higher than District average in all three test areas Growth from grade 4 to 5 Math and Reading above District average growth Scores lower than LRSD in all test areas Grade 3 appears to be strongest. #33 in Grade 4 Reading, #34 in Grade 4 Language, and #33 in Grade 4 Math Below LRSD average in total growth points (73) Grade 2 to 5 Reading = 25 points Grade 2 to 5 Language = 23 points Grade 2 to 5 Math = 25 points Mathematics: Grade 216 points below national median Grade 38 points below Grade 413 points below Grade 514 points below Language: Grade 212 points below national median Grade 35 points below Grade 47 points below Grade 59 points below Reading: Grade 217 points below national median Grade 38 points below Grade 413 points below Grade 512 points below 3 School Booker Arts Magnet Interpretations_______________________________________ Growth from grade 4 to 5 higher than District average in all three test areas Scores higher than District averages in all test areas #10 in Grade 2 Reading, #7 in Math #9 in Grade 3 Reading #9 in Grade 5 Reading, #10 in Math Above District average in total growth points (78) Grade 2 to 5 Reading = 24 points Grade 2 to 5 Language = 27 points Grade 2 to 5 Math = 27 points Mathematics: Grade 27 points below national median Grade 33 points below Grade 43 points below Grade 52 points below Language: Grade 26 points below national median Grade 31 point below Grade 4-AT national median Grade 51 point above national median Reading: Grade 28 points below national median Grade 34 points below Grade 42 points below Grade 54 points below 4 School Brady Success for All Newcomer Center Interpretations___________________________________________ Growth from grade 2 to 3 Math, Language, and Reading higher than average District growth Growth from grade 3 to 4 Language and Reading higher than average District growth Grade 3 seems strong Grade 5 seems weak\ngrowth lower than District averages Score in Grade 3 Math equal to District average #33 in Grade 2 Reading, #31 in Math Above District average in total growth points (84) Grade 2 to 3 Reading = 29 points Grade 2 to 5 Language = 26 points Grade 2 to 5 Math = 29 points Mathematics: Grade 218 points below national median Grade 35 points below Grade 44 points below Grade 511 points below Language: Grade 215 points below national median Grade 34 points below Grade 43 points below Grade 59 points below Reading: Grade 220 points below national median Grade 39 points below Grade 44 points below Grade 513 points below 5 School Carver Science Magnet Interpretations__________________________________________ Growth from grade 3 to 4 in all three test areas higher than District average, Growth from grade 4 to 5 Reading higher than District average Grade 3 seems weak\nlower than average growth #3 in Grade 2 Reading, #2 in Language, #3 in Math #6 in Grade 3 Reading, #6 in Language, #6\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_1690","title":"Court filings concerning teacher retirement and health insurance remedy","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":["1999-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning teacher retirement and health insurance remedy"],"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/1690"],"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":["37 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, advisory letter from Joshua intervenors; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) prehearing brief on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) pre-trial brief re: teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) post-trial submission; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) post-hearing brief on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) post-hearing brief concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) supplemental response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motions for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. JQHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY Ar LAw 1723 BROAl)WAV l,JTTl.E ROCK, Alu\u003c..~NSAS 72206 , TEU:Pl!0:-IE (501) 374-3758   FA.\\ (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-6096 1 anuary 4, 1999 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge  United States District Court 600 West Capitol Llittle Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: 315 P02 '02 JAN OJ ' 99 17:02 This is to advise that the Joshua Intervenors hereby adopt by reference the Little Rock School Dsitrict's Prehearing Brief On The Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Remedy. JWW:js cc: Mrs. Ann Brown All Counsel of Record  IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LI'ITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS :MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PREHEARING BRIEF ON THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE REJMEDY I. Introduction. This hearing concerns the method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. On July 1, 1998, the Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's finding of liability and remanded for a detennination of the districts' damages. LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 1998). In making that detennination, the Eighth Circuit offered the following guidance: On remand, it will be up to the District Court, in the first instance, to decide exactly what relief is appropriate. The three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held hannless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation. Admittedly it cannot be exact, but we believe that the District Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 956, 968 (8* Cir. 1998). As the State, LRSD, NLRSD md Joshua interpret the Eighth Circuit's opinion, the districts' damages should be calculated as follows: (1) determine the amount the districts would have received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the old Act 34 funding system; (2) determine the amount the districts actually received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the new Act 917 funding system; and (3) subtract (2) from (1). II. Discussion. A PCSSD's overall remedy argument. Although PCSSD originally agreed with the other parties' interpretation of the Eighth Circuit's decision, PCSSD now argues that the districts' damages should be based on an overall comparison between the old Act 34 funding system and the new Act 917 funding system. Compare Docket Nos. 3174 and 3187 to 3227. This argument ignores the previous findings of this Court and the opinion of the Eighth Circuit and should be rejected as a matter oflaw. First, the argument ignores the previous findings of this Court. This Court rejected this same argument when it was made by the State. The Court stated: While the state may contend that the settling districts will receive more formula money under the new funding scheme, the Court finds that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling districts to pay health insurance matching from equali1,lllion or local funds is not a \"fair and rational\" adjustment to the funding formula. 2 Docket No. 2968, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 5 ( emphasis supplied). Assuming PCS SD' s calculations are correct, LRSD would recover nothing under an overall remedy. Docket No. 3227, Exhibit A Consequently, LRSD would be forced to use equalization funding or local funds to pay its teacher retirement and health insurance costs. As quoted above, that is exactly why this Court found that the Act 917 funding system violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to teacher retirement and health insurance. It would be absurd to now adopt a \"remedy'' that brings about the same result. Not surprisingly, an overall remedy results in a windfall to PCSSD. PCSSD claims that the overall change from Act 34 to Act 917 decreased PCSSD's total state funding by $3,794,039 in 1996-97 and $2,781,691 in 1997-98. Docket No. 3227, Exhibit A, p. 3. PCSSD seeks to recover these amounts as its remedy for the State's liability with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. However, according to PCSSD's own calculations, its loss for teacher retirement and health insurance totaled only $1,830,003 in 1996-97 and $1,679,881 in 1997-98. Docket No. 3186, Exhibit A and B. Thus, an overall remedy results in PCSSD being awarded damages more than three million dollars in excess of its actual loss in teacher retirement and health insurance funding. The difference between PCS SD' s teacher retirement and health insurance loss and its overall loss results, at least in part, from the adverse impact on PCS SD of the change in the funding formula for distributing general state aid, what was called MFP A under Act 34 and what is now called equalization funding under Act 917. PCSSD seeks to recover this amount despite the fact that no court has found that the Act 917 funding formula per se violates the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement permits the State to make \"[f]air and rational adjustments to the funding 3 formula which have general applicability blltwl,ich nd,,ce tire proportion of State aid to any of the Districts .... \" Settlement Agreement ,U.L (emphasis supplied). Therefore, even if PCSSD is correct in its assertion that it received less general state aid under the Act 917 funding system compared to what it would have received under the Act 34 funding system, this does not establish that Act 917 funding formula violates the Settlement Agreement. PCSSD bears the burden of proving that Act 917 was not a fair and rational adjustment to the funding formulcl. PCSSD moved for summary judgment on this issue on September 2, 1997, while the teacher retirement and health insurance appeals were pending before the Eighth Circuit. Docket No. 3042 and 3043. This Court denied that motion on January 12, 1998 \"[b ]ecause there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding the state funding formula.\" Docket No. 3104, p. 2. Those issues of material fact remain unresolved. Second, PCSSD's argument ignores the precise issue before the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit clearly limited its opinion to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. In the opening paragraph ofits opinion, the Eighth Circuit stated that \"[t]he question presented is whether changes made by the State of Arkansas in the funmng of retirement and health insurance for teachers violated [the Settlement Agreement].\" Id. at 963 ( emphasis supplied). The Eighth Circuit began its discussion stating, \"This case has to do with two important categories of school operating expenses: contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance.\" Id. ( emphasis supplied). Nothing in the Eighth Circuit's discussion indicates that the court went beyond the question presented to find that the Act 917 funding formula violated the Settlement Agreement. Third, PCSSD's argument ignores the whole of the Eighth Circuit's opinion. Taken in the context of the question presented, the remedy contemplated by the Eighth Circuit was clearly limited 4 to the districts' loss in teacher retirement and health insurance funding. the Eighth Circuit began its description of the remedy by stating that \"[t]he three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed \" Id. at 968 ( emphasis supplied). The Eighth Circuit recognized, however, that the districts' equalization funding included some amount for teacher retirement and health insurance. lg. at 965. Accordingly, it directed this Court to reduce the districts' damages by this amount in order to prevent a double recovery. The Eighth Circuit stated: The three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding/or teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have  produced/or teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. Id. (emphasis supplied). Thus, the first step in determining the districts' damages is to calculate \"what the old system would have produced/or teacher retirement and health insurance.\" Id. What the old Act 34 system produced for teacher retirement and health insurance was the districts' actual costs for those programs. Summarizing its explanation of the remedy, the Eighth Circuit concluded: Id. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. 5 Reading these final two sentences in isolation, PCSSD contends that the Eighth Circuit's opinion calls for an overall remedy. However, the failure of the Eighth Circuit to repeat for the third time \"for teacher retirement and health insurance\" after the words \"produced\" and \"producing\" in no way indicates that the Eighth Circuit intended to completely depart from the rest of the opinion and the preceding sentences in the same paragraph. These final two sentences may properly be read as follows: This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance- would have produced [for teacher retirement and health insurance], and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing [for teacher retirement and health insurance]. The Eighth Circuit most certainly would have expressly stated and explained the basis for an overall remedy if such was its intention. This it did not do. Rather, it described the logical course this Court should follow in determining the districts' damages \"for teacher retirement and health insurance.\" The Eighth Circuit's use of the phrase ''MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance\" should not be construed as a mathematical equation, but rather as a general description of the old Act 34 funding system. Even if construed as a mathematical equation, however, the phrase in no way dictates an overall remedy. As discussed above, the preceding sentences make it clear that the Eighth Circuit was concerned with \"what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance.\" Id. Both this Court and the Eighth Circuit have recognized that, under the old Act 34 funding system, the State paid the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs outside of the funding formula used to distribute MFPA. See LRSD v. PCSSD,'148 F.3d at 963. 6 Thus, the tenn MFP A essentially means zero in this context. In accord with this understanding, all of the parties, including PCSSD, originally submitted a proposed remedy based on the districts' actual costs. Docket Nos. 317 4-77. Finally, the Eighth Circuit's rationale for finding that the Act 917 funding system violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs cannot be extended to the entire Act 917 funding system or the entire Act 917 funding fonnula. Quoting this Court's teacher retirement opinion, the Eighth Circuit explained: [I]nstead of directly funding each district based on the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. Just as the workers' compensation \"seed money'' fonnula worked to the detriment of the employee-heavy Pulaski County districts, so too does the distribution of teacher retirement contributions though the new funding formula give the districts less money to fund teacher retirement. While the three Pulaski County school districts may fare better under the new funding scheme from a state aid perspective, there is no question that the amount of their teacher retirement funding, previously directly funded by the State based upon the eligible salaries paid to their employees, will be reduced and result in unequal state funding. Id. at 967. The change from the Act 34 funding formula to the Act 917 funding fonnula does not suffer from this same defect. While teacher retirement and health insurance funding were based on the number of employees, the Act 34 funding formula was not. To summarize, the districts' remedy must, at a minimum, place them in a position which will not require them to use equalization funding or local funds to pay their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. An overall remedy would not achieve this because LRSD would be denied any recovery, notwithstanding an obvious loss of funding under Act 917 to pay these costs. Moreover, the Eighth Circuit's opinion cannot be fairly read as calling for an overall remedy. In discussing the issue and in outlining the remedy, the opinion clearly addresses only the districts' claims as to the 7 teacher retirement and health insurance programs. The Eighth Circuit's opinion should not be read to grant relief beyond the issues before the court. Bailey v. Henslee, 309 F.2d 840 (8* Cir. 1962) Therefore, an overall remedy should be rejected, and the districts' damages should be based on their loss of teacher retirement and health insurance funding. B. Damages based on the districts' loss of teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 1. Actual costs vs. equal funding. To award the districts damages based on their loss of teacher retirement and health insurance funding, this Court must resolve three additional issues. First, the State disagrees with the districts and Joshua on the starting point for calculating the districts' damages. The State argues that the districts' damages should be based on their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The districts and Joshua contend that the State should be required to pay the districts the same percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to all other school districts in Arkansas. In both the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school year, the State paid school districts outside Pulaski County 107% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs.1 In order to provide equal funding to the three Pulaski County districts, the starting point for their damages should be 107% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Docket No. 3187, Exhibit 1. 1Using Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Greene (Docket No. 3176), this percentage may be calculated by first subtracting the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of the three Pulaski County districts from the statewide total to obtain the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of other districts in the state. The amount other districts received in excess of their actual costs is equal to the total desegregation adjustment shown in column 4. The total desegregation adjustment is then added to the actual teacher retirement costs of other districts. This equals the actual amount received by other districts in the state for their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The percentage of costs received by other districts in the state is determined by dividing the actual amount received by other districts in the state by the actual costs of other districts in the state. In both 1996-97 and 1997-98, this percentage is 107%. 8 In the Eighth Circuit's workers' compensation opinion, the court defined the workers' compensation \"program\" as \"equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts.\" LRSD v. PCS SD, 83 F.3d at 1018. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit found that this Court \"correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Id. ( emphasis supplied). 2 Likewise, the State must disburse teacher retirement and health insurance funding to the districts \"in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Therefore, the starting point for determining the districts' damages should be the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other districts in Arkansas rather than the three Pulaski County districts' actual costs. See Docket No. 3187, Districts' Brief, for a more complete discussion of this issue. 2. The amount of equalization funding received for teacher retirement and health insurance. The second issue concerns the amount of equalization funding received by the districts to pay their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The State, LRSD, NLRSD and Joshua disagree with PCSSD as to the appropriate method for calculating this amount. The State proposes a methodology which takes into account the equalizing effect of the Act 917 funding formula. On August 19, 1998, all three districts agreed that the State's method was appropriate. See Docket No. 2Specifically, this Court stated: [T]he Court does find that the State must assist the three Pulaski County school districts to the same degree that it is assisting the other districts in the state. Thus, the state must fund the same proportion of the cost of each of the three Pulaski County school district' workers' compensation insurance as it pays for all the other school districts in the state beginning with the 1994-95 school year. Docket No. 2337, Memorandum Opinion and Order filed Jan. 13, 1995, p. 6-7. 9 3187. However, it appears PCSSD now intends to pursue its alternative methodology, which assumes that the Act 917 funding formula distributed equalization funding based only on a district's Average Daily Membership (''ADM''). PCS SD' s methodology should be rejected because it conflicts with the findings of this Court which were affirmed by the Eighth Circuit and because it fails to take into account the equalization effect of the Act 917 funding formula. (a) The State's methodology. The State proposes that the amount of equalization funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance be determined by a simple two-step calculation. First, the total teacher retirement and health insurance costs for all school districts in the state is divided by the total amount of state aid distributed through the Act 917 funding formula to get a percentage. Next, this percentage is multiplied by the total amount of Act 917 funding received by a district, with the  result being the amount of Act 917 funding the district received for teacher retirement and health insurance. The State's methodology recognizes that there is no way to trace funding for teacher retirement and health insurance through the Act 917 funding formula. As this Eighth Circuit noted, teacher retirement and health insurance funding \"has been folded into the over-all Equalization Funding system .... \" Id. at 965. Because money is fungible, the only reasonable assumption that can be made is that the funding for teacher retirement and health insurance was equally distributed among school districts. Therefore, the State's methodology assumes that, if 15% of equalization funding for all districts was for teacher retirement and health insurance, then 15% of LRSD's equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance. 10 The present case is similar to trust cases involving the commingling of trust assets with other assets. In effect, the State has commingled the teacher retirement and health insurance funding with equalization funding. Where a trustee commingles trust assets with other assets, the trust maintains a right to the trust assets based on their proportion to the whole. See, e.:\u0026., Restatement (Second) of Trusts,  202, comment n. Similarly, the amount of teacher retirement and health insurance funding the districts received should be based on the proportion of teacher retirement and health insurance funding to the whole of equalization funding. This is the result achieved by the State's methodology. The State currently uses this proposed methodology to detennine the amount of equalization funding school districts receive from the Education Excellence Trust Fund (\"Trust Fund\"). Ark. Code. Ann.  6-5-307 (Michie Supp. 1997) requires school districts to spend funding from the Trust  Fund on teachers' salaries. Ark . . Code. Ann.  6-5-307 (Michie Supp. 1997). Like the teacher retirement and health insurance programs, funding from the Trust Fund was once distributed outside the funding formula. When the State began distributing the Trust Fund as a part of equalization funding, school districts still needed to know the amount of funding they received from the Trust Fund in order to determine their compliance with Ark. Code Ann.  6-5-307. The State developed the methodology it now proposes in the present case to detennine the amount of equalization funding a district received from the Trust Fund. This methodology has already been subjected to public comment and adopted by the State Board of Education. The State's regulations setting forth this methodology are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Most importantly, the State's methodology provides the greatest benefit to desegregation in that it results in the greatest monetary award for each school district, including PCS SD. See Docket 11 No. 3187, Districts' Response, Exhibit 1. Under PCSSD's own methodology (which assumes the districts recover more than their actual costs), PCS SD damages total $3,509,884 for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school year. Docket No. 3186, Exhibit A and B. However, using the State's methodology ( and also assuming the districts recover more than their actual costs), PCS SD' s damages total $4,142, 571. See Docket No. 3187, Districts' Response, Exhibit 1. PCSSD's method had a much more significant impact on LRSD. Under PCSSD's methodology, LRSD's damages total $10,726,693. ill Exhibit 2 attached. The State's methodology results in a damage award to LRSD of Sl 7,819,759. See Docket No. 3187, Districts' Response, Exhibit 1. (b) PCSSD Methodology. PCS SD proposes calculating the amount of equalization funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance based on the assumption that each school district received the same amount per ADM. PCS SD takes the total teacher retirement and health insurance costs for all districts and the State and divides that amount by the total state ADM. The resulting per ADM amount is then multiplied by a district's ADM to determine the amount of equalization funding received by the district for teacher retirement and health insurance. PCSSD's methodology should be rejected for several reasons. First, it assumes that all districts received the same amount per ADM and thereby fails to take into account the equalizing effect of the Act 917 funding formula. As this Court has found, \"the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a perADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district.\" Docket No. 2930, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 9 (emphasis supplied). The equalizing effect of the Act 917 funding formula means that districts with greater local resources receive less equalization funding. For example, due to 12 differences in local resources, LRSD received $1,858.73 per ADM in equalization funding in 1997-98 and PCS SD received $2,815.47 per ADM in equaliz.ationfunding in 1997-98. See Exhibit 3 attached. PCS SD contends, however, that both districts received $428.18 per ADM for teacher retirement and health insurance. ~ Exhibit 2 attached. Thus, according to PCS SD, 23% ofLRSD' s equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance while only 15% ofPCSSD's equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance. No rational basis supports the assumption that a greater proportion of LRSD' s equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance. PCS SD' s method would result in LRSD being forced to use equaliz.ation funding or local funds to pay its teacher retirement and health insurance costs, but this is why the change to Act 917 violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs in the first place. As this Court stated, \"requiring the settling districts to pay health - insurance matching from equaliz.ation or local funds is not a 'fair and rational' adjustment to the funding formula.\" Docket No. 2968, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 5. PCS SD attempts to justify the use of a pure ADM calculation by making the assumption that the money for teacher retirement and health insurance was removed from the Act 917 funding formula after equalization and distributed separately. However, there is no factual basis for making this assumption. Teacher retirement and health insurance funding was not removed from equalization funding, and it was not distributed separately after distribution of equaliz.ation funding. Rather, teacher retirement and health insurance funding was commingled with equalization funding. Therefore, the State's methodology provides the only reasonable means for determining the amount of equalization funding the districts received for teacher retirement and health insurance. 13 3. PCSSD's cap argument. Finally, PCS SD argues that the Eighth Circuit's opinion requires a comparison of the overall impact of the change from Act 34 to Act 917 for the purpose of establishing a limit or cap on the districts' damages. While this would not affect PCSSD, calculations submitted by PCS SD indicate that it would bar any recovery by LRSD. Docket No. 3227. PCSSD's motive in making this argument results from a concern about the disparity in teachers' salaries betweenPCSSD and LRSD. PCSSD apparently hopes to prevent LRSD from following through on a promised pay increase contingent upon its recovery in this case. The best indicator of the lack of merit in this argument is the fact that the State itself does not make it, despite the fact that the State would be the real beneficiary if the argument prevailed. As the State concedes, however, a cap on the districts' damages in the manner suggested by PCSSD would violate the Settlement Agreement. - First, capping the districts' damages based on an overall comparison between Act 34 and Act 917 would violate Paragraphs II.E. and II.L. of the Settlement Agreement by depriving the districts of the benefit of the change in the funding formula. The final sentence of Paragraph II.E. prevents the State from using general state aid (now equalization funding) to supplant its funding obligations under the Settlement Agreement. It provides, \"The funds paid by the State under this agreement are not intended to supplant any existing or future funding which is ordinarily the responsibility of the State of Arkansas.\" Settlement Agreement, ,i II.E. Therefore, assuming for the purpose of argument that LRSD benefitted overall from the change to the Act 917 funding system, the fact remains that the State failed to pay the same percentage ofLRSD's teacher retirement and health insurance costs as it paid to other school districts in the state, and this violates the Settlement Agreement. 14 A cap on the districts' damages as suggested by PCSSD would also violate Paragraph II.L. of the Settlement Agreement. The Eighth Circuit described this paragraph as an \"anti-retaliation clause.\" Id. at 966, quoting LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1018 (8* Cir. 1996). Discussing Paragraph II.L. in the workers' compensation decision, the Eighth Circuit explained: Id. Its purpose, by its very words, is to prevent the State from cutting other programs in order to pay for its desegregation commitments. U: for example, the State had passed a statute decreasing or eliminating workers' compensation payments for the settling districts only, while maintaining its system of paying the costs to other school districts, this portion of the Settlement Agreement would have clearly been offended. The flaw in PCSSD's cap argument can also be demonstrated by consideration of a hypothetical statute. Assume the State passed a statute adopting the Act 917 funding system but continuing to directly pay school districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Assume e next that the statute provided that the State would not pay the three Pulaski County districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs to the extent they benefitted from the overall change in the funding formula. Such a statute would clearly violate the Settlement Agreement. In this hypothetical, numerous school districts in the state would receive increased state aid as a result of the change in the funding formula, but only the three Pulaski County districts would be required to use any increase in state aid to pay their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. PCS SD' s cap argument brings about the same result as the hypothetical statute. Therefore, a cap on the districts' damages would, in and of itself, violate the Settlement Agreement and should be rejected. The Eighth Circuit stated in its teacher retirement and health insurance opinion that its decision in the workers' compensation case \"points the way towards a proper solution of the present appeal.\" The Eighth Circuit's opinion in the workers' compensation case in no way indicates that the 15 districts may only recover damages to the extent that they lost money overall due to the change in the funding system. The court simply held that \"the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018. The court imposed no requirement that the districts must lost out overall as a result of the overall funding changes, and this Court should not interpret "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1017","title":"\"Critical Performance Priorities, End of Year Report,\" 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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School employees","School facilities","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Critical Performance Priorities, End of Year Report,\" 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/1017"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_907","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":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","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/907"],"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 FRANC/CAL J JACKSON Director of Student Afjairs DIS0 .. 6/ _/00 ime: 10: ': 35 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through JUNE 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU --------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 1443 52.3% 718 26.0% 458 16.6% 138 5.0% 2757 604 356 257 95 1312 0 HOME SC' P. 566 66.3% 141 16.5% 125 14.6% 22 2.6% 854 293 90 71 14 468 BOYS CI fB 359 58.2% 148 24.0% 88 14.3% 22 3.6% 617 207 97 68 16 388 2 E. I.C. 211 60.3% 106 30.3% 27 7. 7% 6 1. 7% 350 118 52 24 6 200 EXPULSION 7 63.6% 2 18.2% 1 9.1% 1 9 .1% 11 7 2 1 1 11 ==========================================================================------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -=======================================================================-------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =========================================================================------- S.A.C. 1468 55.0% 662 24.8% 401 15.0% 139 5.2% 2670 615 379 234 85 1313 0 HOME SUSP. 406 63.5% 113 17.7% 102 16.0% 18 2.8% 639 247 75 69 15 406 1 BOYS CLUB 351 58.8% 129 21.6% 90 15 .1% 27 4.5% 597 218 92 67 17 394 E. I. C. 246 61.5% 63 15.8% 75 18.8% 16 4.0% 400 120 40 36 8 204 7 EXPULSION 3 60.0% 0 O!l,.  0 2 40.0% 0 O!l,.  0 5 3 0 2 0 5 ====================================================================---------== COMPARISON -=-==================================================================-------=-== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ===================================================================------------- 9 S.A.C. 25 1.7 % 56- 7.8-% 57- 12.4-% 1 .7 % 87- 11 23 23- 10- 1 HOME SUSP. 160- 28.3-% 28- 19.9-% 23- 18.4-% 4- 18.2-% 215- 46- 15- 2- 1 62- 1 BOYS CLUB 8- 2.2-% 19- 12.8-% 2 2.3 !!,. 0 5 22.7 !!,. 0 20- 11 5- 1- 1 6 2 E. I.C. 35 16.6 % 43- 40.6-% 48 177.8 % 10 166.7 % 50 2 12- 12 2 4 7 EXPULSION 4- 57.1-% 2- 100.0-% 1 100.0 % 1- 100.0-% 6- 4- 2- 1 1- 6- DIS032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ~Date: 6/21/00 ELEMENTARY K-5  Time: 10:04:35 From AUGUST Through JUNE --=--===-----------------======================================----============= 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ===============-----BM------==-----BF------==-----NBM-----==-----NBF-----======= # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU \n=\n~~~~~=========\n~====:\n~\n====~~====\n:~\n====~\n====\n~~\n=====\n======~\n====\nHOME SlSP. 11 BOYS c- :.JB E. I.C. EXPULE ON 24 13 12 0 49 374 66.9% 101 18.1% 68 12.2% 16 2.9% 559 202 69 45 12 328 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 60.3% 106 30.3% 27 7.7% 6 1.7% 350 118 52 24 6 200 0 Og.. 0 Og.. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---------- -----------------===================================================- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME Sl '11 BOYS Cl 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULS: HOME SU BOYS CL 1112 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSI I I ? 3 113 58.5% 58 30.1% 19 9.8% 3 1.6% 54 39 17 2 263 62.9% 80 19.1% 62 14.8% 13 3.1% 171 54 42 11 ... 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 246 61.5% 63 15.8% 75 18.8% 16 4.0% 120 40 36 8 0 .0% 0 Og..  0 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 0 1 0 COMPARISON -----BM-----# REF PCT ( + / - ) # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU 193 112 418 278 0 0 400 204 1 1 ===========================================================--------- 77 213. 9 % 40 222.2 % 0 .0 % 3 300.0 % 120 30 26 5 2 63 111- 29.7-% 21- 20.8-% 6- 8.8-% 3- 18.8-% 141- 31- 15- 3- 1- so- 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 16.6 % 43- 40.6-% 48 177.8 % 10 166.7 % 50 2 12- 12 2 4 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 1 0 0 1 0 1 ef: DIS032 ate: 6/21/00 'ime: 10:04:36 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE --------------------------===================================================== 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ------------------------------================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------------------------=--===========================================---= 9 S.A.C. 744 54.3% 353 25.7% 224 16.3% 50 3.6% 1371 316 180 130 35 661 .0 HOME SC.SP. 100 64.5% 23 14.8% 29 18. 7% 3 1. 9% 155 43 10 12 1 66 BOYS C:JB 238 58.2% 107 26.2% 54 13.2% 10 2.4% 409 120 64 37 5 226 2 E. I.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 2 50.0% 1 25.0% 0 09-  0 1 25.0% 4 2 1 0 1 4 ---=======-=-===----------===================================================-=- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----====------------------===============================================------ S.A.C. 652 52.7% 329 26.6% 186 15.0% 71 5.7% 1238 295 185 107 43 630 _o HOME SUSP. 47 52.2% 14 15.6% 28 31.1% 1 1.1% 90 21 9 16 1 47 1 BOYS CLUB 203 54 .1% 98 26 .1% 58 15.5% 16 4.3% 375 116 66 40 9 231 E.I.C. 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 -----===---=====---------==============================================-------- COMPARISON -----==============---=-=================================================------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----=================================================================---------- 9 S.A.C. 92- 12.4-% 24- 6.8-% 38- 17.0-% 21 42.0 % 133- 21- 5 23- 8 31- HOME SUSP. 53- 53.0-% 9- 39.1-% 1- 3.4-% 2- 66.7-% 65- 22- 1- 4 0 19- 1 BOYS CLUB 35- 14.7-% 9- 8.4-% 4 7.4 9- 0 6 60.0 % 34- 4- 2 3 4 5 2 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1- 50.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 100.0-% 3- 1- 1- 0 1- 3- Ref: DIS032 ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:36 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --====-==-----------------------------=========-------================--------- 9 S.A.C. 663 50.5% 347 26.4% 215 16.4% 88 6. 7%- 1313 265 163 115 60 603 0 HOME SUSP. 90 65.2% 17 12.3% 28 20.3% 3 2 . 2 %- 138 47 11 14 1 73 11 BOYS CLUB 121 58.2% 41 19.7% 34 16.3% 12 5.8% 208 87 33 31 11 162 2 E. I.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 5 71.4% 1 14.3% 1 14.3% 0 0 !1--  0 7 5 1 1 0 7 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -==============-----------===============================================------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---=======-=====-=----------======================-----==================------- S.A.C. 703 56. 7%- 275 22.2% 196 15.8% 65 5.2% 1239 266 155 110 40 571 0 HOME SUSP. 94 72.9% 19 14 . 7%- 12 9 . 3 %- 4 3 .1%- 129 54 12 11 3 80 1 BOYS CLUB 148 66. 7%- 31 14.0% 32 14.4% 11 5.0% 222 102 26 27 8 163 E. I.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 2 66. 7%- 0 Og..  0 1 33.3% 0 0!1--  0 3 2 0 1 0 3 -======================================================================-------- COMPARISON ---====================================================================--------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =========================================================================------- 9 S.A.C. 40 6.0 %- 72- 20.7-%- 19- 8.8-%- 23- 26.1-%- 74- 1 8- 5- 20- 32- HOME SUSP. 4 4.4 %- 2 11.8 %- 16- 57.1-%- 1 33.3 %- 9- 7 1 3- 2 7 1 BOYS CLL 27 22.3 %- 10- 24.4-%- 2- 5.9-%- 1- 8 .3-% 14 15 7- 4- 3- 1 2 E. I.C. 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSIC 3- 60.0-%- 1- 100.0-%- 0 .0 %- 0 .0 %- 4- 3- 1- 0 0 4- ef: DIS0 ate: 6/ ime: 10: chool: 3 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 100 by School :36 From AUGUST Through JUNE 2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ------------------================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------- ---------------===============================================----=- 09 S.A.C. 138 49.6% 66 23.7% 63 22.7% 11 4.0% 278 92 49 42 10 193 0 HOME Sl. :i 4 36.4% 3 27.3% 4 36.4% 0 0~  0 11 4 2 4 0 10 1 BOYS c 3 33 58.9% 13 23.2% 9 16.1% 1 1.8% 56 24 11 9 1 45 12 E. I.C. 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 1 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSI N 1 50.0% 0 0~  0 1 50.0% 0 0~  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 ---======-------=----------===============================================------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----==--------------------===============================================------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------------------==============================================------- S.A.C. 160 47.5% 90 26.7% 63 18.7% 24 7 .1% 337 94 65 44 17 220 HOME SUSP. 7 63.6% 0 0~  0 2 18.2% 2 18.2% 11 5 0 2 2 9 1 BOYS CLUB 44 56.4% 12 15.4% 16 20.5% 6 7.7% 78 34 11 14 4 63 E. I. C 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 1 50.0% 0 0~  0 1 50.0% 0 0~  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 --------------===----------===========================================---------- COMPARISON =---====================================================================-------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---================================================================------------ 9 S.A.C. 22 15.9 % 24 36.4 % 0 . 0 % 13 118.2 % 59 2 16 2 7 27 0 HOME SUSP. 3 75.0 % 3- 100.0-% 2- 50.0-% 2 200.0 % 0 1 2- 2- 2 1- BOYS CLUB 11 33.3 % 1- 7.7-% 7 77.8 % 5 500.0 % 22 10 0 5 3 18 2 E.I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 ef: DIS032S Date: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:37 chool: 013 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 ================-==---------------============================================== 1998-.:!9 -----BM------ -BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # EF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # .u # STU # STU ===================-------------- ---------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 505 50.8% 72 27.4% 140 14.1% 77 7.7% 994 166 12 67 51 396 10 HOME SUSP. 4 100.0% 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 4 2 0 0 0 2 1 BOYS CLUB 88 57.9% 8 18.4% 25 16.4% 11 7.2% 152 64 -'-2 22 10 118 12 E. I.C. 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 4 3 1 0 0 4 1999-L.0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------=-----------------=========================================----- S.A.C. 538 60.2% 184 20.6% 132 14.8% 40 4.5% 894 170 92 66 23 351 HOME SUSP. 7 58.3% 2 16.7% 3 25.0% 0 OS--  0 12 7 2 3 0 12 1 BOYS CLUB 104 72.2% 19 13. 2% 16 11.1% 5 3.5% 144 68 15 14 5 102 E. I.C 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 OS--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 O!l--  0 0 O!l--  0 0 OS--  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 -----=====-==========-====-=====-=======================================-------- 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUSP. BOYS CLUB 2 E. I.C. EXPULSION COMPARISON -----BM------ # REF PCT(+/-) # # STU # 33 6.5 % 4 3 75.0 S-- 0 5 16 18.2 % 4 0 .0 % 0 2- 66.7-% 2- ======================================--------- --BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----~ F PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) ..,U # STU # STU =================================------------- 32.4-% 8- 5.7-% 37- 48.1-% 100- 1- 28- 45- 200.0 % 3 300.0 % 0 .0 % 8 3 0 10 32.1-% 9- 36.0-% 6- 54.5-% 8- 8- 5- 16- .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 3- 0 0 3- ef: DIS032S pate: 6/21/00 i me : 10 : 0 4 : 3 7 chool: 020 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ARGENTA ACADEMY -----------------------------------=================--==================--====== 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ----------------------------------================---=================---===-== -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -======---------=-----------==================================================== S.A.C. 47 59.5% 14 17. 7% 18 22.8% 0 0 9-  0 79 25 9 11 0 45 0 HOME SUSP. 176 65.2% 35 13.0% 53 19.6% 6 2.2% 270 79 17 22 2 120 1 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 ---==----------=-----------==================================================== 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----------------=------------=-----==============------==================-===--- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------=------------=-----===============-----======================--= 9 S.A.C. 7 58.3% 3 25.0% 1 8.3% 1 8.3% 12 7 3 1 1 12 HOME SUSP. 126 65.3% 32 16.6% 33 17.1% 2 1.0% 193 62 21 20 1 104 1 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  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 ---------------=====------=====================================---------------- 9 S.A.C. 40- 85.1-% 11- 78.6-% 17- 94.4-% 1 100.0 % 67- 18- 6- 10- 1 33- 0 HOME SUSP. 50- 28.4-% 3- 8.6-% 20- 37.7-% 4- 66.7-% 77- 17- 4 2- 1- 16- BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:37 School: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU =====================-==------===========================================------- S.A.C. 228 56.7% 108 26.9% 57 14.2% 9 2.2% 402 98 56 35 8 197 HOME SUSP. 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 4 3 1 0 0 4 11 BOYS CLUB 121 63.4% 46 24.1% 19 9. 9% 5 2.6% 191 54 28 15 3 100 12 E. I.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 66. 7% 1 33.3% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 3 2 1 0 0 3 =========================================================================------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ======================================================================---------- 09 S.A.C. 220 55. 7% 82 20.8% 52 13.2% 41 10.4% 395 103 48 31 21 203 10 HOME SUSP. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 1 100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 1 11 BOYS CLUB 119 64.0% 33 17.7% 21 11. 3% 13 7.0% 186 66 23 19 6 114 12 E. I.C 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  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. 8- 3.5-% 26- 24.1-% 5- 8.8-% 32 355.6 g.. 0 7- lf10 5 8- 4- 13 6 HOME SUSP. 3- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 3- 3- 1- 0 1 3- 11 BOYS CLUB 2- 1.7-% 13- 28.3-% 2 10.5 % 8 160.0 % 5- 11112 12 5- 4 3 14 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1- 50.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 2- 1- 1- 0 0 2-  DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:37 chool: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -===========----------------------==--========-==-------=============----------- 9 S.A.C. 129 54.0% 61 25.5% 27 11. 3% 22 9.2% 239 64 32 21 11 128 0 HOME SUSP. 3 100.0% 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 3 3 0 0 0 3 1 BOYS CLUB 42 72 .4% 16 27.6% 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 58 22 9 0 0 31 E. I.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ==========================================================================------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -=======================================================================-------- 9 S.A.C. 96 45.7% 66 31.4% 41 19.5% 7 3.3% 210 48 37 28 5 118 HOME SUSP. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 BOYS CLUB 13 35.1% 17 45.9% 6 16.2% 1 2.7% 37 9 12 5 1 27 2 E. I.C 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  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 ================================================================--------------- S.A.C. 33- 25.6-% 5 8.2 % 14 51.9 % 15- 68.2-% 29- 16- 5 7 6- 10- 0 HOME SUSP. 3- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 3- 3- 0 0 0 3- BOYS CLUB 29- 69.0-% 1 6.3 % 6 600.0 % 1 100.0 % 21- 13 - 3 5 1 4- 2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS03 ., 6/2 , 00 Time: 10: 0 37 School: C 6 ROSE Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ----------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 134 49.6% 73 27.0% 55 20.4% 8 3.0% 270 62 42 30 6 140 10 HOME sm:?. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CL 3 54 43.2% 38 30.4% 28 22.4% 5 4.0% 125 30 21 17 2 70 12 E. I. C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  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 ==========================================================================------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 --==========-======--------=============================================-------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------=---=-=-===---------===========================-===============---------- 09 S.A.C. 119 48.4% 62 25.2% 49 19.9% 16 6.5% 246 64 39 20 12 135 10 HOME SUSP. 1 33.3% 0 Og..  0 2 66. 7% 0 Og..  0 3 1 0 2 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 41 41.8% 30 30.6% 26 26.5% 1 1.0% 98 22 17 13 1 53 12 E. I.C 0 09,  0 0 09,  0 0 09,  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 Og..  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(+/-) # sru #Sru #sru #Sru ==============================================================------------------ 09 S.A.C. 15- 11.2-% 11- 15.1-% 6- 10.9-% 8 100.0 % 24- 2 3- 10- 6 5- 10 HOME SUSP. 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 2 200.0 % 0 .0 % 3 1 0 2 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 13- 24.1-% 8- 21.1-% 2- 7.1-% 4- 80.0-% 27- 8- 4- 4- 1- 17- 12 E. I. C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 g.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 g.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 chool: 030 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL =======--------===============================================------ 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------- ====-------------=====================-----===============---------- 9 S.A.C. 226 53.6% 106 25.1% 79 18.7% 11 2.6% 422 88 50 42 10 190 0 HOME SUE 0 O!l,-  0 1 100.0% 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 BOYS CLl, 21 60.0% 7 20.0% 7 20.0% 0 O!l,-  0 35 16 7 5 0 28 E. I.C. 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 1 O!l,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSIO 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 1 100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 1 =============================================================------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------- -=======================================-==================--------- 9 S.A.C. 215 56.1% 117 30.5% 44 11. 5% 7 1.8% 383 84 60 28 6 178 HOME susr. 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 BOYS CLU::., 30 55.6% 18 33.3% 5 9.3% 1 1.9% 54 21 14 3 1 39 2 E. I.C 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSIO, 0 O!l,-  0 0 O!l,-  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 ===============================================================---------------- 9 S.A.C. 11- 4.9-% 11 10.4 % 35- 44.3-% 4- 36.4-% 39- 4- 10 14- 4- 12- 0 HOME SUSP. 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 0 1- 0 0 1- BOYS CLUB 9 42.9 % 11 157.1 % 2- 28.6-% 1 100.0 % 19 5 7 2- 1 11 2 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 1- 0 0 0 1- 1- DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 chool: 031 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----=-=-------------------------------=---------------------=======------------ 9 S.A.C. 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 31 86.1% 3 8.3% 2 5.6% 0 0!1--  0 36 16 3 2 0 21 1 BOYS CLUB 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -=====================-===============================================---------- 9 S.A.C. 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 42 75.0% 5 8.9% 7 12.5% 2 3.6% 56 20 5 6 2 33 1 BOYS CLUB 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----===============================================================------------- COMPARISON ---==========================================================--=--------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # ~TU # STU # STU --=============================-========================----------------------- S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 11 35.5 % 2 66.7 % 5 250.0 % 2 200.0 % 20 4 2 4 2 12 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 !1-- 0 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 ::\nchool: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 3 42.9% 0 09--  0 4 57.1% 0 0 9-  0 7 2 0 1 0 3 1 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 09,  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==================-=--=================================================-------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 =========================================================================----=== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --=======================================================================----==== 9 S.A.C. 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 9,  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 1 16.7% 4 66. 7% 1 16. 7% 0 09--  0 6 1 3 1 0 5 1 BOYS CLUB 0 09,  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  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 =========================================================---------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 2- 66.7-% 4 400.0 % 3- 75.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 3 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 6/21/00 by School ime: 10:04:38 chool: 033 From AUGUST Through JUNE BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ----------- 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUS 1 BOYS CLl E. I.C. 7 EXPULSI 9 S.A.C. HOME SUS 1 BOYS CLC 2 E.I.C EXPULSIO ---------- 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUS BOYS CLU 2 E.I.C. 7 EXPULSIO 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ========------=-===========================================--------- 3 60.0% 1 20.0% 1 20.0% 0 Og..  0 5 3 1 1 0 5 104 82.5% 20 15.9% 0 Og..  0 2 1. 6% 126 57 12 0 1 70 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 09-,  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===========-===========================-----=-=-=========----------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 =======================================--=-=--=========-=---------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ======================================================------------- 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 051-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 73.4% 17 26.6% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 64 31 9 0 0 40 0 Og..  0 0 051-  0 0 Og..  0 0 051-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 82.5% 20 16. 7% 0 Og..  0 1 851-  0 120 53 11 0 1 65 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  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 =======================================---===---------------------- 3- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 5- 3- 1- 1- 0 5- 57- 54.8-% 3- 15.0-% 0 .0 % 2- 100.0-% 62- 26- 3- 0 1- 30- 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 . 0 % 20 .0 % 0 .0 % 1 . 0 % 120 99 20 0 1 65 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S 6/21/00 10:04:38 035 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 '------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =================---------------==============----====================---------- S.A.C. 1 100.0% 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 1 1 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 23 65.7% 12 34.3% 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 13 11 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 115 57.5% 82 41.0% o1 1. 5% 0 0~  0 51 33 3 . 0 EXPULSION 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 ~=====================---===-===================-=====================---------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -==================-----------================----===================----------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --=================------------==============----------=--========----------==== S.A.C. 93 66.4% 41 29.3% 6 4.3% 0 Og.  0 140 42 26 5 0 73 HOME SUSP. 21 70.0% 5 16.7% 4 13.3% 0 0 g.  0 30 17 3 2 0 22 BOYS CLUB 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C 4 100.0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 4 4 0 0 0 4 EXPULSION 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---=============================~= ==========================------------------- COMPARISO ==-============================ -----BM------ # REF PCT(+/-) # # STU # ==--=========================== S.A.C. 92 9200.0 % 41 HOME SUSP. 2- 8.7-% 4 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 E. I. C. 111- .0 % 1- EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 =============================------------------ --BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----SF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) TU # STU # STU =========-------------------------------------- 1 4100.0 % 6 600.0 % 0 .0 % 139 5 0 72 7- 58.3-% 4 400.0 % 0 .0 % 5- 3- 2 0 2- J . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 2- .0 % 3- .0 % 0 .0 % 196- 3- 0 83- 1 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 ) 0 0 0 DIS0 6/ Time: 10: School: S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Joo by School :38 From AUGUST Through JUNE 7 LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----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 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUS 36 80.0% 6 13.3% 2 4.4% 1 2.2% 45 27 5 2 1 35 11 BOYS CLU 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 62 72.1% 15 17.4% 0 5.8% 0 4.7% 86 39 11 5 4 59 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =========================================================================------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -==================-==================================-=================-------- -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---================------=============================--=-============---------- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C 17 EXPULSION 0 0 16 11 0 0 38 24 0 0 09-  0 66.7% 09-  0 73.1% 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 6 25.0% 6 0 0 9-  0 0 11 21. 2% 11 0 09-  0 0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 1 4.2% 1 4.2% 24 1 1 19 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 3 5.8% 0 09-  0 52 2 0 37 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  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 9- 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSI 20- 55.6-% 0 .0 % 1- 50.0-% 0 .0 % 21- 16- 1 1- 0 16- 11 BOYS CLUF 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 24- .0 % 4- .0 % 2- . 0 % 4- .0 % 34- 0 0 2- 4- 22- EXPDLSIO. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10: 04: 38 chool: 040 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =============-------------------================================================ 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ===========----------------------=========================================----- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------------------------------=======--------===================------- 9 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 47 73.4% 6 9.4% 5 7.8% 6 9.4% 64 23 6 4 3 36 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E.I.C. 0 O!?-  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 O!?-  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ---==============---------====--=======================================--------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----===========-------------=-====================-----------=====------------- 9 S.A.C. 2 50.0% 1 25.0% 0 Og..  0 1 25.0% 4 2 1 0 1 4 HOME SUSP. 51 59.3% 14 16.3% 18 20.9% 3 3.5% 86 28 7 7 2 44 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 O!?-  0 0 Og..  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 --===========================================================------------------ 9 S.A.C. 2 200.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 4 2 1 0 1 4 0 HOME SUSP. 4 8.5 % 8 133.3 % 13 260.0 % 3- 50.0-% 22 5 1 3 1- 8 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 !?- 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 chool: 041 Analysis o by School From Al NORTH HEIGHTS EL} -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # F # STU # s 8isciplinary Actions DST Through JUNE ENTARY SCHOOL -BF------ -----NBM----- ~ PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT J # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 J Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 CJ 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 28 50.9% 2 3.6% 24 43.6% 1 1.8% 55 16 2 18 1 37 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 10 37.0% 3 11.1% 0 48.1% 0 3.7% 27 9 2 10 1 22 7 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---==============---------------==============--=========================------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ====================----===---==========================================------- 9 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 22 52.4% 1 2.4% 13 31.0% 6 14.3% 42 16 1 12 5 34 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 105 46.9% 32 14.3% 72 32.1% 15 6.7% 224 40 18 34 7 99 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----===============================================================------------- COMPARISON ---=========================================================------------===-=-= -----BM------ --- -BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # R-F PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # s~u # STU # STU -===============================-========================---------------------- S.A.C. 0 . 0 % . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 6- 21.4-% , 50.0-% 11- 45.8-% 5 500.0 % 13- ~ 0 . 6- 4 3- ~ BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % C .0 % 0 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 95 .0 g.. 0 29 .0 % 59 . 0 % 14 .0 % 197 10 1 , 59 14 77 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 DIS03 S ate: 6/2 _/00 i me : 10 : 0 . 3 8 chool: 0%2 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --============-==----------======================---=====================-==---- 9 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 23 67.6% 7 20.6% 2 5.9% 2 5.9% 34 16 5 2 2 25 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 05!,,  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -------------=---------------=-=================-===----=================------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---=======================================================================------ 9 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 15 55.6% 9 33.3% 3 11.1% 0 Og..  0 27 11 4 2 0 17 1 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 05!,,  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 =----====================================================---------------------- 9 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 8- 34.8-% 2 28.6 % 1 50.0 % 2- 100.0-% 7- 5- 1- 0 2- 8- BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 chool: 043 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---===-====--==-------------===================================================- 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ----=-=====--=-------------==================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------=----------------------==============================================-- 9 S.A.C. 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 48 44.4% 33 30.6% 23 21.3% 4 3.7% 108 24 15 12 4 55 1 BOYS CLUB 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 19 59.4% 6 18.8% 0 18.8% 0 3.1% 32 15 6 6 1 28 7 EXPULSION 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------===----=------------========================-=======================-=--- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -------=====-==-=----------========================-=======================----- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------======---------=========================--====-===============------- 9 S.A.C. 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 20 54 .1% 10 27.0% 7 18.9% 0 O!,.-  0 37 13 9 6 0 28 1 BOYS CLUB 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 O!,.-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=----=================================================================--------- COMPARISON -=-------==========----=-========================================--------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) #SW # SW #SW #SW ---======= ==========--=--==========================---------------------------- S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SU 28- 58.3-% 23- 69.7-% 16- 69.6-% 4- 100.0-% 71- 11- 6- 6- 4- 27- BOYS CL 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 19- . 0 % 6- .0 % 6- .0 % 1- .0 % 32- 1- 1- 6- 1- 28- EXPULSI 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 i me : l O : O 4 : 3 8 :::\nchool: 044 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -----=--------=--==--------===================================================-= l 9 9 8 - 9 9 ---------------------------------=============-=============================--= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------=------------------==================================================== 9 S.A.C. 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 17 77.3% 2 9 .1% 3 13. 6% 0 Os-  0 22 12 2 2 0 16 1 BOYS CLJB 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 4 100.0% 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 4 4 0 0 0 4 7 EXPULSION 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----=---=-----=-----------==============================================------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ------=------=====--------===========================-===================------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----=====-=======------==================================================------ 9 S.A.C. 0 0 s-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 9 100.0% 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 9 7 0 0 0 7 1 BOYS CLUB 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0 s-  0 0 Os-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 0 s-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------===============-==============================================------------ COMPARISON -----=============================================================------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =---=======================================================-------============= S.A.C. 0 .0 s- 0 0 . 0 s- 0 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 8- 47.1-% 2- 100.0-% 3- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 13- 5- 2- 2- 0 9- BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C. 4- .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 4- 1- 0 0 0 4- 7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ate: 6/21/00 i me : 10 : 0 4 : 3 8 chool: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ---============-=----------===================================================== 9 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 0 HOME SUSP. 4 50.0% 3 37.5% 1 12.5% 0 O!l-  0 8 1 2 1 0 4 1 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 02,,  0 0 02,,  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ---================--------==============================================------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----====-=======----------==========================--===============-------=-- 9 S.A.C. 0 02,,  0 0 02,,  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 5 62.5% 1 12.5% 2 25.0% 0 02,,  0 8 5 1 2 0 8 1 BOYS CLUB 0 02,,  0 0 02,,  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I.C 0 O!l-  0 0 02,,  0 0 Og,.  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 1 100.0% 0 02,,  0 1 0 0 1 0 1 -----=============-----==========================================--------====--- COMPARISON ---==============================================================--------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) #SW #Sru #Sru #Sru =-=========================================================---------============ S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 1 25.0 % 2- 66.7-% 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 0 4 1- 1 0 4 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 1 0 0 1 0 1 Disors ate: 6/2\" loo 'ime: 10:04.38 chool: 046 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -----------~-----------------------==============------==================-====== 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ---------------=------------========================-========================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -----====-=-----==-=--------=======================---========================== S.A.C. 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 3 60.0% 2 40.0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 5 3 2 0 0 5 1 BOYS CLUB 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---------------==----------======================----===================-=----- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -----==---=-----====-------=========================--===================-=-=--- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---------------==----------======================----=================--------- 9 S.A.C. HOME SUS 1 BOYS CLU- 2 E.I.C EXPULSIC ---======= 9 S.A.C. 0 HOME SUS BOYS CLU_ E. I.C. 7 EXPULSIO! 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100.0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=====--------=======================================-------------- COMPARISON ========---========================================---------=------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT ( +/-) # REF PCT ( +/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT ( +/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =============================================-----------====------ 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 !!- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2- 66.7-% 2- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 4- 2- 2- 0 0 4- 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 !!- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 % 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 !!- 0 0 .0 !!- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S 6/21/00 ime: 10: 04: 38 School: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ====================----===========================-================------------ S.A.C. 32 47.8%- 17 25.4%- 18 26. 9%- 0 0 2--  0 67 21 12 11 0 44 HOME SUSP. 7 50.0%- 5 35.7%- 2 14.3%- 0 02--  0 14 5 4 2 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 2--  0 0 02--  0 0 02--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 1 100.0%- 0 0 2--  0 0 02--  0 0 0 2--  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 EXPULSION 0 0 2--  0 0 02--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ========================================================================-------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -===================--==================================================---===== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -===================--================================================----====== S.A.C. 18 36.7%- 16 32.7%- 13 26.5%- 2 4 . 1%- 49 10 12 12 1 35 HOME SUSP. 12 46.2%- 7 26.9%- 6 23.1%- 1 3 . 8%- 26 10 7 5 1 23 BOYS CLUB 0 0 2--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 02--  0 0 02--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E.I.C 0 0 2--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 02--  0 0 02--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0 2--  0 0 0 2--  0 0 O!l,.  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 ---======================================================----------------------- S.A.C. 14- 43.8-%- 1- 5.9-%- 5- 27.8-%- 2 200.0 %- 18- 11- 0 1 1 9- HOME SUSP. 5 71.4 %- 2 40.0 %- 4 200.0 %- 1 100.0 %- 12 5 3 3 1 12 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 E.I.C. 1- . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- EXPULSION 0 .0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S 6/21/00 ime: 10:04:38 chool: 049 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE REDWOOD PRE-SCHOOL 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT #\" REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -===============-==--------------========================================------- S.A.C. 0 09,.  0 0 0 g..  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 2 100.0% 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 2 2 0 0 0 2 BOYS CLUB 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 09,.  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -========================================================================------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --=================-----=====--========================================--------- S.A.C. 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 O!e-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 3 100.0% 0 O!e-  0 0 O!e-  0 0 O!e-  0 3 2 0 0 0 2 BOYS CLUB 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C 0 Og..  0 0 09,.  0 0 Og..  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 09,.  0 0 Og..  0 0 09,.  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --==================================================================------------ COMPARISON ---=============================================================---------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # R3F PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # S :'U # STU # STU =-=============================================================-=-============== S.A.C. 0 .0 % .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 1 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 1 50.0 % .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1 0 0 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 NCJrth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions School Year 1999-2000 District Level Elementary Middle Schools High Schools 7 year Comparison Graphs 1 1 1 1 N4t\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level 600-/ .--. 400- v,_ ,c.._ 200- ~- 000- V\"\u0026gt;- 800- v ..... 600- i.-- 400- i.-- 200- vi- 0 - BM D 98-99 1443 D 99-00 1468 Action 09: SAC ~ ~. I!:.-- ,____ - u BF NBM 718 458 662 401 I I NBF 138 139 IL 98-99  99-00 Ne\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level ,Action 10: Home Suspension 600 _,, ,.c:\n500- i,,t- - 400- --~ - 300- v- 98-99  99-00 200 _,,c- FL ~ 100~,,--- ~ I - -:.a 0-. - - ---- I I --.. BM BF NBM NBF 11198-99 566 141 125 22 I  99-00 I 406 113 102 18 Nce\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 11: Boys Club 400-~ - 350-\" L..... 300- 1,- 250- L, '-- 200- 1,/-- 98-99 150- I,~ ~ b  99-00 100- i..,'- ~ 50- 1.,'-- ~ 0 - fl L BM BF NBM NBF ltil 98-99 359 148 88 22 D 99-00 351 129 90 27 Nt:\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Alction 12: Alt School Susp K-5 250- ,.c::::\ne::. 200- 1,1\u0026gt;- 150- ,..~ - ..:::::::.j 98-99 100- i..,t-  99-00 ~ -'-- 50- i,,- ~ ,,c=\n. 0 - ---- - ~ BM BF NBM NBF !D 98-99 211 106 27 6  99-00 246 63 75 16 N,orth Little Rock Public Schools A.nalysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 17: Expulsion 7- ,,c,\n...:.\n:. 6- I\n',- 5- 1,t- 4- .,,- .,,,- - 98-99 3-  99-00 2- 1,,- L- - 1 -1,t- F-- - 0- - - - - - BM BF NBM NBF a 98-99 7 2 1 1 D 99-00 3 0 2 0 N:\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 09: SAC 120-\" ~ 100- so-~ 60-\"' - ~ 98-99  99-00 40_L, - c.::::. 20- L,~ .c=. - I L::::::.i!ll 0 - - - BM BF NBM NBF l'!l 98-99 36 18 19 0 D 99-00 113 58 19 3  II N4:\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 J\"ction 10: Home Suspension 400-\" c::: 350- 1,,I- 300- I,,~ - - 250- ,..,- 200- ~,- 98-99 150- 1,,I-  99-00 100- ~,- ,._ '=- ~ ~ 50- i,t- ,...__ - -- ~ 0 - I ~ BM BF NBM NBF .198-99 374 101 68 16 0 99-00 263 80 62 13 Ne\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 q Action 11: Boys Club II 1 _,, 0.9 _v 0.8 _v 0.7-.., 0.6 _v 0.5 _v 98-99 0.4-,,  99-00 0.3-\" 0.2--- 0.1 _,, 0 BM BF NBM NBF ID 98-99 0 0 0 0 a 99-00 0 0 0 0 II N:\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Alction 12: Alt School Susp K-5 250_/ c::::: C: 200- ,,._ 150- v- 100- i,,- 50- L,- 0- - ..___,_,_ BM la 98-99 211 D 99-00 246 ,.c::::\n- ~ -= BF 106 63 .t::::i .t:=. NBM 27 75 Ff1 NBF 6 16 98-99  99-00 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 17: Expulsion 1 - ,L.._ 0.9-\" 0.8 _,, 0.7--- 0.6 _v 0.5 _v 98-99 0.4-v  99-00 0.3 _,, 0.2-\"' 0.1-  0 - - - - BM BF NBM NBF I  98-99 0 0 0 0 D 99-00 0 0 1 0 N,orth Little Rock Public Schools A.nalysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 09: SAC 800-\" ::: 700- I,,'- - - 600- i,'- 500- i,'- 400-1,, ~ 98-99 ~ 300- i,,'- ~  99-00 200-L, ~ ,___ ~ \u0026gt;--- s-:-: ,__ ,____ \u0026gt;--- 100- i.,'- 0 ._ - Lr=fll. BM BF NBM NBF ID 98-99 744 353 224 50 D 99-00 652 329 186 71 q II N4t\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools ~\"ction 10: Home Suspension 100 _,, ,,c..- 90- v- 80- ..-. 70- v- 60- - I,,,- 50- - - 98-99 40- i,,\u0026gt;-  99-00 30- i,, .... ~ ~ ,.:=\n20- 1,, .... ,___ -.-- 10- .,- - 0 - - --- - - BM BF NBM NBF Im 98-99 100 23 29 3 D 99-00 47 14 28 1 NDrth Little Rock Public Schools A.nalysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools 250-\n200- ,.~ 150- i..,'- 100- ,-'- 50- i..,'- 0 - ID 98-99  99-00 Action 11: Boys Club .::.::: '-- ,_ ..c:::\njl E:,_ - ,_ ~ L\"\"\"\"\"\".:ll - ---- F1 L,. BM BF NBM NBF 238 107 54 10 203 98 58 16 98-99  99-00 Ni\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools A~ction 12: Alt School Susp K-5 1 _,, 0.9 _,, 0.8- 0.7 _,, 0.6 _,, 0.5-\" 98-99 0.4 _v  99-00 0.3 _v 0.2 _v 0.1 - 0 - BM BF NBM NBF ID 98-99 0 0 0 0 D 99-00 0 0 0 0 II N\u0026gt;rth Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools 2-' 1.8- 1\n1- 1.6- 1.,t- 1.4- i,,- 1.2- v\u0026gt;- 1 -1,,\u0026gt;- 0.8- ..-. 0.6- I, 1-- 0.4- ..-. 0.2- ,,- 0 ...., CJ 98-99 D 99-00 Action 17: Expulsion rL- '-- ~ ~ .,__ - - - BM BF NBM NBF 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 - -  98-99 D 99-00 -IIJ II Nc,rth Little Rock Public Schools A1nalysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 09: SAC 800-\" 700 _,, - ~ 600-\n\u0026gt;- 500- v\u0026gt;- 400- v,_ ~ 98-99 300- v- ---  99-00 - 200- v- ~ 100- i,,- 11.. 0- ... BM BF NBM NBF ID 98-99 663 347 215 88 D 99-00 703 275 196 65 Nctrth Little Rock Public Schools A1r1alysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Jlction 10: Home Suspension 1ool ..c:::: 90-\" ~ 80- ...... 70- v- 60- ,,- 50- ...- 40- .,,- 30- i.,\u0026gt;- ,.t::::: 20- ..-. ,, ~ - 10- 1,,- - ..__ .. ..__ A -..., 0- -- BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 90 17 28 3  99-00 94 19 12 4 98-99  99-00 North Little Rock Public Schools Araalysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 11: Boys Club ,\n' ~ ~ -- 160- 140- 120- .,,-z:::: 100- 1, 1-- _.,-- 60- 40- 20 0- - 1,\n'- L,'- ... BM 121 148 -b -- ~ ' I BF NBM NBF 41 34 12 31 32 11 -- L . 98-99 099-00 NCJrth Little Rock Public Schools A11alysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 1T 0.9j 0.8 _v 0.7 _v 0.6 _v 0.5 _v 98-99 0.4-v  99-00 0.3\" 0.2- 0.1 _,, 0 - - - - BM BF NBM NBF D 98-99 0 0 0 0 D 99-00 0 0 0 0 Ncrth Little Rock Public Schools A1r1alysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 17: Expulsion -r -- _\n-- _..,..- _ 1,1.. ...\n- _v- . ,,-,\n__.\n\u0026gt;- _,-,, '-- - _,\u0026gt;.- - - -- 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 BM BF NBM NBF 5 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 98-99 099-00 North Little Rock Public Schools Aa,1alysis of Disciplinary Actions 7 Year Comparison Action 09: SAC 21000 _________ ___, 1500 93-94 1000  94-95  95-96 500  96-97  97-98 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 1 93-94 977 529 449 156  99-00  94-95 869 460 411 126  95-96 1052 446 410 140  96-97 1264 55 469 142  97-98 1801 862 547 132  98-99 1443 718 458 138  99-00 1468 662 401 139 Nctrth Little Rock Public Schools A1r1alysis of Disciplinary Actions 7 Year Comparison ~lction 10: Home Suspension tSOO !500 ,400 93-94 300  94-95 200  95-96  96-97 100  97-98 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 93-94 231 60 76 22  99-00 D 94-95 236 106 103 20  95-96 162 46 47 3  96-97 591 208 125 17  97-98 511 125 104 13  98-99 566 141 125 22  99-00 406 113 102 18 North Little Rock Public Schools Ar1alysis of Disciplinary Actions 7 Year Comparison Action 11: Boys Club EiOO !iOO ~,oo 93-94 :JOO  94-95 !ZOO  95-96  96-97 100  97-98 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 1J 93-94 119 39 39 9  99-00 [] 94-95 133 44 31 a 1195-96 334 82 72 12 1196-97 357 146 85 20 1197-98 515 148 112 a 1198-99 359 148 88 22 1199-00 351 129 90 27 No,rth Little Rock Public Schools A11alysis of Disciplinary Actions 7 Year Comparison Acction 12: Alt School Susp K-5 2000~------~ 1500 93-94 1000  94-95  95-96 500  96-97  97-98 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 93-94 168 54 45 8  99-00 a 94-95 178 68 58 5  95-96 1563 492 510 71  96-97 154 30 32 3  97-98 0 0 0 0  98-99 211 106 27 6  99-00 246 63 75 16 Nc,rth Little Rock Public Schools A1nalysis of Disciplinary Actions 7 Year Comparison Action 17: Expulsion 8 .....-----------, 6 93-94 4  94-95  95-96 2  96-97  97-98 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 1193-94 6 4 3 0  99-00 ,:J 94-95 7 0 1 0  95-96 2 1 0 2  96-97 3 7 0 0  97-98 6 5 0 0  98-99 7 2 1 1  99-00 3 0 2 0\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information 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_420","title":"Discipline, management 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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1999/2000"],"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 discipline","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, management 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/420"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\ne, Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: Quarter: Quarter:  Counts Each Student Once I LEVEL SCHQQL BM BF fYM WF QM QF Total Senior High ACC LEARN 3 0 3 1 0 0 7 agencies 10 1 1 0 0 0 12 1 received CENTRAL FAIR 85 31 24 2 0 0 142 112 72 22 14 5 1 226 JUN 212001 HALL 207 93 24 13 16 6 3S9 MCCLELLA 148 99 S 7 4 2 26S OfflCEOF desegregation MONITORING METRO PARKVIEW 25 29 6 9 7 3 0 0 43 8 3 1 0 55 Middle Schoo ALT LEARN 64 24 2 4 CLOVR JR 171 87 11 6 DUNBAR 85 42 16 2 FORST HT 119 64 28 3 HENDERSN 67 42 12 4 Elementary MABELJR MANN M/S PULHTJ SOUTHWST BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT DODD FAIR PRK FORST PK FRANKUN Tuesday, May OS, 2001 68 29 19 6 54 19 22 3 31 88 6 3 8 1 15 11 7 3 7 44 57 22 4 59 2 2 1 3 2 4 1 0 1 17 6 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senior High 1112 1 0 95 10 4 269 0 5 2 2 0 0 2 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 Middle Schoo 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 148 222 128 126 98 164 159 1409 8 5 14 4 17 19 11 4 8 61 Fage I of 2 I I asm SOAS ojni TTOZTZC rvd iT:60 T0/80/S0Recidivism Report - Black/White Year\n Quarter: 1 Quarter\n4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHQQL BM BF WM WF OM QF Totai Elementary FULBRIGH GEYER SP 13 18 GIBBS 12 18 3 3 1 0 0 0 7 1 4 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 JEFFRSN 9 5 2 0 0 0 16 M U KING 12 0 0 S 2 S 0 MABEL EL 29 10 47 MCDERMOT 19 24 MEADCLIF 13 14 MITCHELL 22 30 5 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 OTTER CR 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 PULHTE 7 2 0 0 0 0 9 RIGHTSEL 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 ROCKFELR 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 ROMINE 6 4 1 1 0 0 12 0 TERRY 13 23 WAKEFIEL 21 26 1 9 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 WASHNGTN a 0 0 2 0 1 5 0 WATSON 12 17 5 0 0 0 WESTHIL 13 1 0 0 0 3 9 4 0 WILLIAMS 11 17 2 0 0 WILSON 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 WOODRUFF 0 7 4 3 0 0 0 Elementary 487 Tuesday, May OS, 2001 CO asl SOAS OJMI Grand Total 3008 Page 2 af 2 TtOZfZC IVd il-:80 T0/80/S0RECEiVEC APR 6 JffW mwmniiie: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1999-2000 ANNUAL DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT TO: FROM: SLTBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 June 28,2000 Dr. Leslie Carnine, Superintendent Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent Student Discipline 1999-2000 Annual Disciplinary Management Report The following data represents the Annual Disciplinary Management Report for the 1999-2000 school year. A comparative summary of the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 school years is presented. The Discipline Sanctions by Reason Codes and Recidivism Reports for the 1999-2000 school year are also included.1999-2000 ANNUAL DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT SUMMARY During the 1999-2000 school year, the Little Rock School District experienced a decrease in the number of disciplinary sanctions issued to students when compared to the 1998- 1999 school year. The data indicates that during the 1998-1999 school year 5312 suspensions were issued when compared to 4926 suspensions during the 1999-2000 school year, which represents a decrease of 386 suspensions. When the 1999-2000 school year was compared to the 1997-1998 school year, there was a noticeable decrease of 1321 suspensions. There were 25,190 students enrolled in the LRSD according to the October 1, 1999, enrollment figure. The recidivism report indicates that only 11.9 percent of the students enrolled in the District received suspensions during the 1999-2000 school year when compared to 12.9 percent during the 1998-1999 school year and 14.5 percent during the 1997-98 school year. 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 Short-term suspensions 5664 4865 4588 Long-term suspensions 474 446 335 Expulsions 109 1 3 TOTALS 6247 5312 4926 Number of students committing offenses 3585(6247) 3237(5312) 3011(4926) The disciplinary report also indicates that fewer than two percent of the students enrolled in the District were involved in violent offenses. Violent offenses are considered by the Arkansas Department of Education as incidents involving drugs, alcohol, student assaults, staff assaults, knives with two and one-half inch blades, handguns, rifles, shotguns, explosives, clubs and gang activity. The District can contribute this success to the establishment of middle schools, which moved the 9* grade students to the high school level and the 6* grade students to the middle school level. The success can also be contributed to the revamping of the Districts Alternative Learning Environments coupled with the implementation of the Accelerated Learning Program at Metropolitan Career and Technical Education Center. The Disciplinary Management Report indicates that the number of students receiving suspensions at the high school level increased. However, the number of studentsreceiving suspension at the middle school and elementary levels decreased, information below represents the nrunber of suspensions for a three-year period: The 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 High Schools 1311 1226 1762 Middle Schools 3455 2976 2505 Elementary Schools 1481 1110 659 TOTALS 6247 5312 4926Name /\\CC LEARN AGENCIES CENTRAL FAIR HALL MCCLELLA METRO PARKVIEW Totals ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S PULHTJ SOUTHWST Totals BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT DODD FAIR PRK FORST PK FRANKLIN School Enrolled 205 118 2045 955 1391 1192 0 1157 7063 63 705 739 785 551 494 842 760 447 5386 312 296 534 348 525 510 203 221 318 485 ITednesday, June 2S, 2000 %Blk 77% 49% 57% 80% 71% 89% 0% 50% 68% 90% 88% 60% 65% 77% 73% 52% 60% 91% 69% 74% 85% 51% 71% 52% 67% 65% 72% 44% 96% LRSD Discipline Management Report 1999/2000 Year Short Term Suspension BM BF IFM T otal 1 0 3 1 5 14 1 1 0 16 136 170 362 218 22 34 957 101 364 144 229 110 97 73 156 169 1443 9 2 7 1 14 10 7 3 12 63 43 103 162 142 8 8 467 37 118 72 105 60 41 31 74 95 633 2 3 1 3 2 4 1 0 1 25 27 33 62 13 3 7 149 7 38 28 55 18 31 25 32 16 250 0 0 5 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 2 20 23 14 0 7 67 9 11 11 6 6 6 3 4 7 63 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 208 326 609 387 33 56 1640 154 531 255 395 194 175 132 266 287 2389 11 5 14 4 16 18 11 4 13 88 Long Term Suspension ! ' ' \"' BM \\bP i lEM I WF Total 2 1 5 14 37 17 1 4 81 14 14 5 7 4 8 5 4 5 66 0 1 1 0 4 3 1 0 0 10 0 1 1 5 3 2 1 1 14 5 5 0 9 1 1 3 3 5 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 1 8 7 8 3 0 2 22 0 0 3 2 4 0 1 0 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 27 49 22 2 9 Expulsion Recommendation BM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 0 20 19 8 18 9 11 9 7 12 113 0 1 1 0 4 3 2 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BF IFM fVF Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total HSiisp 8 18 216 353 658 409 35 65 1762 174 550 263 413 203 186 141 273 302 2505 11 6 15 4 20 21 13 4 13 99 %Blk 38% 94% 86% 83% 86% 93% 91% 72% 86% 90% 91% 84% 85% 86% 79% 79% 87% 92% 87% 100% 100% 60% 100% 100% 81% 69% 75% 100% 100% Page 1 of 2Name FULBRIGH GARLAND GEYER SP GIBBS JEFFRSN M L KING MABEL EL MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCHELL OTTER CR PUL HT E RIGHTSEL ROCKFELR ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIEL School Enrolled %Blk 410 267 324 285 370 612 378 373 251 247 349 306 269 401 322 515 334 41% 94% 82% 52% 39% 55% 74% 57% 79% 97% 47% 57% 97% 61% 66% 46% 84% WASHNGTN 543 61% WATSON 445 WEST HIL 255 WILLIAMS 458 WILSON 313 WOODRUFF Totals GTotal 99/00 282 12061 24510 Wednesday, June 28, 2000 LRSD Discipline Management Report 1999/2000 Year Short Term Suspension Long Term Suspension 94% 75% 51% 89% 80% BM 2 0 15 15 11 4 39 66% 67% BF ITM WF j T oial BM T BF IVM IFF Total 3 0 1 4 7 2 4 1 0 6 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0! 0 0 1 4 0 20 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 15 30 2 4 0 0 0 2 0 19 22 0 7 1 4 6 23 22 2 10 9 11 4 6 390 2790 1 8 2 1 0 0 4 2 12 1 2 3 0 3 5 109 1209 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 53 452 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 137 21 20 8 60 36 20 31 3 8 1 4 12 31 34 6 12 13 11 7 11 559 4588 4 0 2 7 1 1 7 0 1 1 0 0 2 5 4 2 0 4 1 1 67 214 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 12 58 1 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 21 55l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 14 1 1 7 0 2 3 0 0 8 5 5 5 1 10 1 1 Expulsion Recommendation BM 100 335 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total WM \\wF j Total itSusp %Blk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 8 88% I 0 i -+ 0 ! 0 0 0 0 1 21 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 h 0 i 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 74 37 100% 81% 88% 90% 62% 70% 89% T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21 38 3 10 4 4 12 39 39 11 17 14 21 8 12 659 4926 100% 97% 67% 100% 100% 100% 83% 69% 100% 64% 100% 93% 81% 100% 100% 88% 87% Page 2 of 2Discipline Sanctions by Reason Code Year: 2000 Quarter: 1 to Quarter: 4 27-Jun-OO Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Senior High ACC LEARN 2 2 2 3 3 3 080 090 115 000 090 091 Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Repeat Violation USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 8 Senior High AGENCIES 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 050 062 040 no 115 121 072 Left School w/o Permission Reftised to obey Rule/Directi Fighting Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Verbal Assault on Staff 1 0 4 7 I 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 7 1 2 2 18 Senior High CENTRAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 050 060 090 no 131 132 133 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 no 115 121 122 150 010 072 091 092 120 121 140 Minor Altercation Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to Serve Detention Using Foul or Abusive Langu First Offense Use/Poss Alcoh Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Repeated School/Class Tardie Assault Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club Inciting to Riot Use of Weapon TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 0 2 1 0 1 5 0 2 4 4 22 2 5 1 2 8 72 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 8 8 0 0 3 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 15 0 0 1 4 4 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 7 1 4 4 4 38 3 6 3 6 21 94 2 4 3 1 I 1 1 2 1 1 216 Senior High FAIR 1 1 1 2 2 060 062 110 010 020 Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Battery 1 1 1 6 9 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 23 14 LRSD Information Services 1Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Senior High FAIR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 070 080 090 100 no 115 120 121 122 150 000 010 060 071 072 090 100 121 140 Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspas Malicious Mischief! Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS.CHEMICA Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Arson Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession ofWeapon Poss Fireworks or Explosives Use ofWeapon TERRORISTIC THREATEN! 1 24 4 4 12 2 3 76 1 5 2 18 0 4 1 1 3 0 1 0 4 0 5 5 1 2 0 I 7 1 3 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 , 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 21 0 1 8 0 5 38 0 9 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 3 0 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 52 11 7 26 2 II 128 2 19 5 20 2 4 1 2 5 2 1 2 8 353 Senior High HALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 060 062 090 no 131 132 133 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 115 120 121 122 140 150 000 010 071 072 090 091 120 121 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to Serve Detention Using Foul or Abusive Langu First Offense Use/Poss Alcoh Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Repeated School/Class Tardie Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspas Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten, Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgeiy/Failure to Provide ID Possession of Fireworks Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS.CHEMICA Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession ofWeapon Possession Weapon/Knife Inciting to Riot Use ofWeapon 1 3 7 1 5 1 4 0 1 33 2 7 2 16 14 1 35 4 43 39 130 I 3 2 2 5 1 3 4 6 1 0 21 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 2 0 0 5 0 3 2 16 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 I 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 0 13 0 3 3 14 II 0 14 0 7 19 56 0 2 6 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 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 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 7 2 11 3 6 2 1 53 2 12 6 35 27 1 56 5 60 61 219 2 5 12 2 10 2 3 5 9 1 1 27 1 LRSD Information Services 2Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total 658 Senior High MCCLELLA 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 060 062 100 110 132 133 140 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 no 115 120 150 000 071 072 091 092 120 140 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Smoking Using Foul or Abusive Langu Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Repeated School/Class Tardie Fais, of Info/Records (Elem) Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspas Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club Inciting to Riot TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 1 23 28 5 2 5 2 17 1 2 6 2 27 6 0 20 1 9 12 42 1 4 1 1 4 3 1 6 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 12 17 3 0 3 0 25 0 4 3 1 31 4 1 10 0 3 1 23 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 40 48 8 2 8 2 43 1 8 9 3 60 II 2 33 2 13 14 71 1 4 1 1 6 5 1 6 2 409 Senior High METRO 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 050 060 062 070 no 010 040 080 090 100 115 120 123 072 140 Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Use of Paging Devices Verbal Assault on Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 4 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 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 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 2 1 4 1 5 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 35 Senior High PARKVIEW 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 090 105 no 115 120 Theft Fighting Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications 3 8 2 3 6 10 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 11 8 3 8 12 2 LRSD Information Services 3Level School LvI Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Senior High PARKVIEW 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 121 122 150 072 090 091 140 Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 2 1 2 4 65 Middle School ALT LEARN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 060 062 070 080 090 no 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 no 115 120 121 123 150 000 071 072 090 091 140 Minor Altercation Harrassment Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Failure to Serve Detention Refused to Serve Detention Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspas Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Use of Paging Devices Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 3 0 1 4 1 4 0 3 3 1 1 29 3 2 17 1 9 7 4 5 1 0 2 1 3 3 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 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 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 7 1 8 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 Middle School CLOVRJR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 050 060 062 070 080 090 no 133 010 020 030 040 050 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Failure to Serve Detention Refused to Serve Detention Using Foul or Abusive Langu Repeated School/Class Tardie Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling 16 9 13 17 20 1 7 11 5 7 3 3 3 64 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 LRSD Information Services Senior High 1762 3 1 5 2 4 0 0 2 4 0 1 1 3 26 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 7 3 7 2 7 3 1 1 36 3 2 27 2 20 12 5 5 I 1 3 2 6 3 1 3 5 174 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 10 20 21 26 1 7 14 13 7 4 5 7 105 1 4Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Middle School CLOVRJR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 080 090 100 105 no 115 120 121 122 150 071 072 090 091 092 140 Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 18 5 55 23 62 2 16 1 0 2 4 1 2 1 4 1 1 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 26 8 14 1 8 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 27 5 89 32 83 3 24 3 1 3 7 1 2 1 5 550 Middle School DUNBAR 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 080 010 020 030 040 060 080 090 100 105 no 115 120 121 122 123 150 000 071 091 100 140 Minor Altercation Failure to Serve Detention Assault Battery Theft Fighting False Alarm Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Use of Paging Devices Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs . USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Poss Fireworks or Explosives TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 3 8 4 5 47 1 7 7 8 6 4 32 7 2 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 0 2 1 2 1 1 8 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 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 5 0 29 2 2 5 3 2 3 17 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 I 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 12 10 6 81 3 12 13 13 11 8 63 11 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 263 Middle School FORST HT 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 040 060 062 100 no 132 010 020 030 040 060 080 090 100 105 Harrassment Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Smoking Using Foul or Abusive Langu Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Assault Battery Theft Fighting False Alarm Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives 0 2 20 0 1 1 10 14 10 70 1 1 8 8 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 13 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 15 0 1 0 2 2 4 25 0 0 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 36 1 2 1 13 20 15 114 1 1 19 11 5 LRSD Information Services 5 ILevel School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Middle School FORST HT 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 no 115 120 121 122 140 150 071 090 091 121 140 Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Possession of Fireworks Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff Possession ofWeapon Possession Weapon/Knife Use ofWeapon TERRORISTIC THREATENI 44 31 2 2 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 2 6 11 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 5 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 47 3 2 1 1 4 4 1 4 2 7 413 Middle School HENDERSN 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 062 020 030 040 080 090 100 no 115 120 121 150 010 071 072 140 Minor Altercation Refused to obey Rule/Directi Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 0 6 4 40 1 10 1 2 45 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 8 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 24 0 1 0 0 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 5 73 1 13 1 2 86 2 1 1 2 I 2 4 203 Middle School MABEL JR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 060 062 070 no 133 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 no 115 121 150 071 072 091 092 140 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Using Foul or Abusive Langu Repeated School/Class Tardie Assault Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 4 39 1 6 7 1 3 14 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 11 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 2 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 1 6 4 2 1 1 1 6 6 73 1 8 7 1 13 30 2 3 1 3 3 1 3 LRSD Information Services 6Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total 186 Middle School MANN M/S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 050 090 100 no 115 120 121 000 072 091 140 Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 2 1 23 2 1 6 0 34 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 15 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 20 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 46 2 2 7 1 63 2 4 2 2 2 3 141 Middle School PUL HT J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 060 062 070 080 090 110 132 133 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 115 120 121 122 123 150 071 072 091 092 140 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Failure to Serve Detention Refused to Serve Detention Using Foul or Abusive Langu Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Repeated School/Class Tardie Assault Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Use of Paging Devices Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club TERRORISTIC THREATENI 11 0 0 2 2 1 6 1 3 0 2 4 4 8 58 2 4 1 2 1 36 1 6 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 15 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 35 0 3 0 1 6 15 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 I 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 1 2 2 1 7 1 5 1 2 6 4 16 109 2 8 2 3 7 57 3 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 273 Middle School SOUTHWST 1 2 2 2 2 2 132 010 020 030 040 080 Use/Poss. Drugs (1st) Assault Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis 1 5 9 4 67 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 11 4 130 3 LRSD Information Services 7Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Middle School SOUTHWST 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 090 100 105 no 115 120 123 071 . 072 081 091 no 140 Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Use of Paging Devices Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Firearm/Pistol Possession Weapon/Knife Extortion, Blackmail, Coercio TERRORISTIC THREATENI 11 10 2 6 50 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 4 16 18 I 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 10 8 22 76 2 1 3 2 3 4 1 2 302 Elementary BALE 1 2 2 060 110 115 Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary BASELINE 2 2 3 010 115 071 Assault Repeat Violation Physical Assault of Staff 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary BOOKER 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 060 010 040 100 no 122 072 Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir. Assault Fighting Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Forgeiy/Failure to Provide ID Verbal Assault on Staff 4 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary BRADY 2 2 010 no Assault Disorderly Conduct 1 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary CARVER 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 030 040 115 060 071 140 Minor Altercation Theft Fighting Repeat Violation Arson Physical Assault of Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 3 8 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elementary CHICOT 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 040 060 062 030 040 050 no Harrassment Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Theft Fighting Gambling Disorderly Conduct 1 0 2 I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Middle School 2505 LRSD Information Services 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 2 11 2 3 1 6 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 15 2 2 4 1 3 10 2 1 I 2 20 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 8Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Elementary CHICOT 2 2 3 3 3 115 120 071 091 092 Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 1 21 Elementary DODD 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 no 010 020 090 105 no 115 121 071 140 Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Battery Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Physical Assault of Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 2 0 1 1 I 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 1 3 1 2 I 1 1 1 1 1 13 Elementary FAIRPRK 2 2 110 115 Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 Elementary FORST PK 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 040 no 010 030 040 100 115 121 Harrassment Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Theft Fighting Indecent Exposure Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 I 13 Elementary FRANKLIN 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 050 060 062 070 no 010 030 090 100 105 no 115 120 121 071 091 140 Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Theft Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 I 1 1 1 6 3 1 1 1 12 22 10 2 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 8 9 1 2 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 I 7 3 2 1 3 20 31 11 4 4 3 4 99 Elementary FULBRIGH 1 2 2 2 2 060 020 030 040 115 Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Battery Theft Fighting Repeat Violation 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 LRSD Information Services 9Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Elementary FULBRIGH 3 091 Possession Weapon/Knife 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 Elementary GARLAND 3 140 TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Elementary GEYER SP 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 020 105 110 115 121 071 Assault Battery Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Physical Assault of Staff 0 1 1 4 7 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 10 2 1 21 Elementary GIBBS 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 070 110 040 115 150 000 071 140 Minor Altercation Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Using Foul or Abusive Langu Fighting Repeat Violation Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS.CHEMICA Physical Assault of Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 5 1 0 7 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 1 7 2 1 1 2 2 26 Elementary lEFFRSN 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 062 010 040 115 120 Minor Altercation Refused to obey Rule/Directi Assault Fighting Repeat Violation Harassing Communications 0 1 0 5 4 I 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 10 5 1 20 Elementary ML KING 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 060 020 030 040 115 091 140 Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Battery Theft Fighting Repeat Violation Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 13 Elementary MABEL EL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 050 060 062 110 010 020 030 040 090 no 115 120 Minor Altercation Harrassment Left School w/o Permission Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Direcb Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Battery Theft Fighting Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications 0 3 1 11 6 0 2 1 3 1 2 1 6 1 0 1 0 3 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 14 7 1 9 1 4 2 2 2 9 1 LRSD Information Services 10Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Elementary MABEL EL 2 3 3 3 3 3 121 072 090 091 092 140 Repeated Violation-Smoking Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 2 0 1 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 5 74 Elementary MCDERMOT 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 060 062 040 080 100 115 120 091 Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Fighting Malicious Mischief/Vandalis Indecent Exposure Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Possession Weapon/Knife 1 0 3 2 2 20 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 1 0 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 0 0 0 1 1 5 3 2 22 2 1 37 Elementary MEADCLIF 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 040 090 105 no 115 092 Assault Fighting Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Possession Weapon/Club 1 2 1 4 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4 11 1 1 21 Elementary MITCHELL 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 040 060 010 030 040 100 105 no 115 120 071 091 140 Minor Altercation Harrassment Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Assault Theft Fighting Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 1 0 8 1 1 4 1 3 2 0 1 1 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 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 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 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 13 1 1 5 1 3 2 1 1 1 5 38 Elementary OTTER CR 1 2 2 062 010 090 Refused to obey Rule/Directi Assault Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 Elementary PULHTE 1 2 2 2 2 3 040 040 100 105 no 140 Harrassment Fighting Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 10 Elementary RIGHTSEL 2 115 Repeat Violation 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LRSD Information Services 11Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Elementary RIGHTSEL 3 3 071 140 Physical Assault of Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 Elementary ROCKFELR 1 2 2 040 010 020 Harrassment Assault Battery 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4 Elementary ROMINE 1 1 2 2 060 062 010 020 Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir, Refused to obey Rule/Directi Assault Battery 1 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 8 1 12 Elementary TERRY 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 062 070 010 030 040 080 100 115 120 121 071 092 140 Minor Altercation Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Refused to obey Bus Rules\u0026amp; Assault Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Indecent Exposure Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Club TERRORISTIC THREATENI 5 1 0 1 5 1 1 0 2 6 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 2 7 2 1 1 1 6 39 Elementary WAKEFIEL 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 no 010 020 040 no 115 121 071 140 Using Foul or Abusive Langu Assault Battery Fighting Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Physical Assault of Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 1 1 10 4 5 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 I 12 8 9 I 3 2 39 Elementary WASHNGTN 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 010 020 no 091 092 121 140 Assault Battery Disorderly Conduct Possession Weapon/Knife Possession Weapon/Club Use of Weapon TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 11 Elementary WATSON 1 1 2 2 2 060 062 020 030 040 Failure to Follow Rul. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Battery Theft Fighting 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 I 2 1 LRSD Information Services 12Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Elementary WATSON 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 100 no 120 071 091 121 140 Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Harassing Communications Physical Assault of Staff Possession Weapon/Knife Use of Weapon TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 2 1 1 1 2 1 17 Elementary WESTHIL 2 2 2 3 010 105 115 091 Assault Refusing to Follow Directives Repeat Violation Possession Weapon/Knife 1 1 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 9 1 14 Elementary WILLIAMS 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 060 062 030 040 115 140 Minor Altercation Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Refused to obey Rule/Directi Theft Fighting Repeat Violation TERRORISTIC THREATENI 4 1 2 2 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 2 1 1 10 21 Elementary WILSON 1 1 1 2 2 3 030 040 060 no 115 091 Minor Altercation Harrassment Failure to Follow Rui. or Dir. Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Possession Weapon/Knife 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 8 Elementary WOODRUFF 2 2 2 2 3 020 040 no 121 091 Battery Fighting Disorderly Conduct Repeated Violation-Smoking Possession Weapon/Knife 1 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 7 1 1 12 LRSD Information Services Elementary Grand Total: 659 4926 13Recidivism Report Counts each student once per total Year: 2000 Quarter: 1 to Quarter: 4 27-Jun-00 Level School Total Senior High ACC LEARN AGENCIES 7 12 CENTRAL 142 FAIR HALL MCCLELLA METRO 226 359 269 44 PARKVIEW 55 Middle School Elementary Senior High ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S PULHTJ SOUTHWST Middle School BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT DODD FAIR PRK FORST PK FRANKLIN FULBRIGH GARLAND GEYER SP GIBBS JEFFRSN M LKING MABEL EL MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCHELL OTTER CR PUL HT E RIGHTSEL ROCKFELR ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIEL WASHNGTN WATSON WESTHIL WILLIAMS LRSD Information Services 1114 94 269 148 222 128 126 98 164 159 1408 8 5 14 4 17 19 II 4 8 61 7 1 18 18 16 12 47 24 14 30 3 9 4 4 12 24 28 8 17 13 17 1Level School Total Elementary WILSON WOODRUFF 5 7 Elementary 489 Grand Total: 3011 LRSD Information Services 2\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\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_1080","title":"\"High School (Grade 9-12) Curriculum Catalog,\" 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":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Curricula","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["\"High School (Grade 9-12) Curriculum Catalog,\" 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/1080"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nHIGH SCHOOL {Grade 9 - 12) CURRICULUM CATALOG 1999-2000 Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 501/324-2000 Table of Contents Mission for the Division of Instruction Graduation Requirements 1. LRSD Graduation Requirements (for students who were freshmen prior to fall 1998) 2. Summary of Graduation Requirements Classes of 2001 and Prior Accelerated Learning Center, Effective Fall 1998 Class of 2002 and After Recommended Common Core and Career Focus, Class of 2003 2 3 3. Board Policy IKF: General Education Graduation Requirements, 7 Effective for the Graduating Class of 2002 4. Administrative Regulation IKF-R: General Graduation Requirements, 9 Effective for the Graduating Class of 2002 Credit-Earning Options Credit Earning Options for LRSD Students 16 1. Credit for Courses Taken in Middle School 17 Middle School Curriculum Area Schools 17 Dunbar Magnet Middle School 18 Henderson Middle School 19 Mann Magnet Middle School-Arts 20 Mann Magnet Middle School-Sciences 21 Parameters for Middle Schools 22 2. Credit for Courses Taken in Summer High School 23 3. Credit for Courses Taken in Evening High School 23 4. Dual-Enrollment for High School and College Credit for Designated Courses Taken at Hall High 23 5. Dual-Credit for College Courses 23 6. Credit through Correspondence Courses, University of Arkansas 24 7. Approved Dual-Credit Correspondence Courses 25 8. Early College Correspondence Enrollment 25 9. Accelerated Learning Program 26 10. Advanced Standing/Credit Agreements 27 Pulaski Technical College 27 ITT Technical Institute 29 Arkansas State University-Beebe 29 11 . Credit Earned for Success on Advanced Placement Examinations 30 LRSD Strategic Plan Objectives 30 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 30 Determining Placement in Pre-AP and AP Courses 30 National Science Foundation Cooperative Agreement 31 12. Credit Earned through University/College Summer Programs 32 13. Credit Earned through Distance Learning 32 14. Credit Earned through Credit by Examination 32 Miscellaneous Policies and Regulations Relating to Instruction Minimum Class Size 33 Early Graduation 33 Regulation for Early Graduation 33 Selection of Honor Graduates (for the Class of 2002 and prior) 33 Course Numbers Course Numbering Code 34 Course Descriptions Art 35 Art-Parkview Magnet 38 Business Education 40 Business Education-McClellan High 48 Communications 50 Dance-Parkview Magnet 53 Drama 55 Drama-Parkview Magnet 57 English 58 English-as-a-Second Language-Hall High 64 Family and Consumer Science 67 Foreign Languages 72 Health and Physical Education 78 Journalism 80 JROTC 83 Marketing Education 86 Marketing Education-McClellan High 88 Mathematics 89 Music 93 Music-Parkview Magnet 96 Science 100 Science (ESL)-Hall High 104 Science-Parkview Magnet 105 Social Studies 107 Social Studies (ESL)-Hall High 113 Social Studies-Central High 113 Trades and Industry 115 Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center 120 Special Education-Resource Room 130 Special Education-Self-Contained 131 Non-Credit Numbers 132 Mission for the Division of Instruction Little Rock School District The mission of the Division of Instruction is to improve the academic achievement of all students, enabling them to realize their aspirations. This mission is accomplished by providing leadership, instructional resources, technical assistance, professional development, and advocacy for all students. LRSD Graduation Requirements (for students who were freshmen prior to fall 1998) English 4 units Foreign Language 2 units in one foreign language-required only for college Admission and to qualify for Academic Challenge Scholarship Program. Social Studies 3 units-must include one unit of U.S. History, one unit of World History or AP European History, and one unit of Civics or U.S. Government. Science 3 units-two of the units must be Biology and Physical Science. Mathematics 3 units-must include Algebra I or equivalent. Oral Communications 1 unit Physical Education  unit-One unit of PE may count towards graduation. Must earn  unit of PE and  unit of Health. (Students excused from PE for medical reasons must take  unit of Human Physiology.) Health  unit Fine Arts  unit Required Units 15  units Electives 5  units Total Units 21 Academic Challenge Scholarship Program: World History, two units of one foreign language, Geometry, Algebra II and either Chemistry or Physics must be taken to be eligible for Academic Challenge Scholarship Program. (These requirements apply to those students who will graduate in 1999, 2000, and 2001.) 2 Summary of Graduation Requirements Classes of 2001 and Prior Accelerated Learning Center Class of 2002 and After Recommended Common Core Requirements, Effective Fall 1998 (freshmen in fall 1998) and Career Focus, Class of 2003 English-4 units English-4 units English Language Arts-4 units English Language Arts-4 units ESL English I, English I or ESL English I, English I or English I English I Pre-AP\nand Pre-AP\nand ESL English II, English II or ESL English II, English II or English English II Pre-AP\nand II Pre-AP\nand ESL English Ill, English Ill, ESL English Ill, English Ill, English English Ill Pre-AP, or Ill Pre-AP, or English Ill AP\nand English Ill AP\nand ESL English IV, English IV, or ESL English IV, English IV, or English IV AP English IV AP Oral Communication-1 unit Oral Communication-1/2 unit Oral Communication-1 unit Oral Communication-1 unit Communications I Communications I Social Studies-3 units or 2 units Social Studies-3 units Social Studies-3 units Social Studies-4 units of Social Studies and 1 unit of (1 unit of World History, 1 unit of Civics and Civics and vocational/technical studies: U.S. History,  unit of Civics or World History and World History and (1 unit of Civics or American Government) United States History United States History and Government and 1 unit of One additional unit from: African/ American History. If a third unit of African-American History (1 ), social studies is taken, it must be European History AP ( 1 ), a world focus course. World U.S. Government and Politics AP History must be taken to be ( 1 /2), eligible for Academic Challenge Comparative Government AP (1/2) Scholarship Program.) Economics (1/2) Sociology ( 1 /2) 3 Classes of 2001 and Prior Accelerated Learning Center Class of 2002 and After ' Recommended Common Core Requirements, Effective Fall 1998 (freshmen in fall 1998) and Career Focus, Class of 2003 Mathematics-3 units Mathematics-3 units Mathematics-3 units Mathematics-4 units (3 units to include Algebra I) (1 unit of Algebra or its equivalent Algebra I and Algebra I and and 1 unit of geometry or its Geometry or Concepts of Geometry and equivalent) Geometry and Algebra II and One additional unit based on One advanced unit. Students are algebra and geometry knowledge strongly encouraged to take a and skills. mathematics course during their senior year. Science-3 units Science-3 units Science-3 units Science-4 units (At least one unit shall be in life (at least 1 unit of Biology or its Physics I and Physics I and science and one unit in physical equivalent and 1 unit of a physical Biology I and Biology I and science. All required science science) Chemistry I Chemistry I and units must provide hands-on One additional unit laboratory experience for students a minimum of 20 percent of instructional time.) Foreign Languages-2 units Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education A Physical Education A Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety Health and Safety 4 Classes of 2001 and Prior Accelerated Learning Center Class of 2002 and After Recommended Common Core Requirements, Effective Fall 1998 (freshmen in fall 1998) and Career Focus, Class of 2003 Fine Arts-1/2 unit Fine Arts-1/2 unit Fine Arts-1 unit Fine Arts-1 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, One unit from art, dance, drama, or or music music Vocational/Technical Education- Technology Applications-1 Technology Applications-2 units 1 unit may substitute for 1 unit of unit Two units from Keyboarding social studies One unit from Keyboarding Applications (1/2), Word Processing Applications (1/2), Word A (1/2), Word Processing B (1/2), Processing A (1/2), Word Database Management (1/2) Processing B (1/2), Database Desktop Publishing A (1/2), Desktop Management (1/2) Desktop Publishing B (1/2), Programming A Publishing A (1/2), Desktop (1/2), Programming B (1/2), Publishing B (1/2), Programming Computerized Business A (1/2), Programming B (1/2), Applications (1 ), Computerized Computerized Business Accounting II (1 ). Applications (1 ), Computerized Accounting II (1 ). 5 Classes of 2001 and Prior Accelerated Learning Center Class of 2002 and After Recommended Common Core Requirements, Effective Fall 1998 (freshmen in fall 1998) and Career Focus, Class of 2003 Career Focus-3 units Career Focus-3 units Career Focus-4 units Three specified units from one of At least three specified units from At least four units from one of the the following areas: one of the following areas: following areas: Humanities Humanities Humanities Sciences Sciences Sciences Fine Arts Fine Arts Fine Arts Administrative Services Administrative Services Parkview Magnet-Arts-8 units Business Management Business Management Parkview Magnet-Sciences-5 Finance Finance units, plus yearly project Marketing Marketing McClellan High-5  specified Coordinated Career Education Coordinated Career Education units. Child Care and Guidance Child Care and Guidance Management and Services Management and Services Food Production, Management, and Food Production, Management, Services and Services Family and Consumer Sciences Family and Consumer Sciences General Cooperative Education General Cooperative Education JROTC JROTC Trades and Industry Trades and Industry Electives-5  units Electives-3 units Electives-4 units Total: 21 units (15 of the units Total: 21 units Total: 24 units Total: 27 units must be taken in high school) 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF GENERAL EDUCATION GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS, EFFECTIVE FOR THE GRADUATING CLASS OF 2002 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 postsecondary education and employment opportunities available to them after graduation. Diploma A student may earn a Little Rock School District diploma in one of two ways. Each has different requirements and different numbers of required credits. 1. LRSD Diploma from the Accelerated Learning Center for completion of the 21 units required by the State of Arkansas (15 Common Core units, 3 Career Focus units, and 3 elective units). 2. LRSD Diploma from any of the five high schools for completion of the required seventeen (17) units in the LRSD Common Core, plus a minimum of three (3) units in a Career Focus area, plus four (4) electives for a total of 24 units. LRSD Common Core, Effective for the Graduating Class of 2002 and After It is the policy of the Board of Education that satisfactory completion of the following seventeen (17) specified LRSD Common Core units is required for a student to graduate. These requirements shall not be waived or altered except by an Individual Education Program (IEP) team for a student identified with disabilities. English Language Arts-4 units Oral Communication-1 unit Mathematics-3 units Science-3 units Social Studies-3 units Fine Arts-1 unit Health and Physical Education-1 unit Technology-1 unit Career Focus-3 units In addition to the LRSD Common Core, each student must complete a minimum of three units from one area of Career Focus. Electives-4 units Total Required-24 units 7 Recommended Common Core and Career Focus-27 units Effective for the Graduating Class of 2003 In addition to the LRSD Common Core requ irements outlined above for students graduating in 2002 or later, the Board of Education recommends, effective for the Graduating Class of 2003, the following enhanced and \"Recommended Common Core and Career Focus,\" which includes, but goes beyond those units required in Arkansas for unconditional admission to public colleges and universities and for eligibility for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarship. The \"Recommended Common Core and Career Focus\" includes the admission requirements of the most competitive universities in the United States of America. LRSD Common Core-17 units AND Social Studies-1 additional unit Mathematics-1 additional unit Science-1 additional unit Foreign Language-2 additional units Technology-1 additional unit Career Focus-1 additional unit Total Recommended Common Core and Career Focus-27 units 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF-R GENERAL EDUCATION GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS, EFFECTIVE FOR THE GRADUATING CLASS OF 2002 Honors Diploma Seal A special seal shall be affixed to the diploma and transcript of a student who meets the following standards: a. Completes the 27 units of the \"Recommended Common Core and Career Focus,\" which includes, but goes beyond, the requirements of the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board for unconditional admission to any public two-year or four-year institution of higher education in Arkansas and which includes, but goes beyond, the requirements for eligibility for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarship. The \"Recommended Common Core\" reflects the admission requirements of the most competitive universities in the United States of America. b. Successfully completes a minimum of six Pre-Advanced Placement courses and two Advanced Placement courses over a four-year period\nc. Earns a grade-point-average of at least 3.5. Credit-Earning Options The units for graduation will generally be earned in grades nine through twelve, except that one unit of Algebra I (or higher-level mathematics) and Level I of foreign language (or higher-level foreign language) may be earned in grade eight. High-school courses taken before grade eight will not satisfy a unit of credit toward graduation. All courses taken in grades 9-12 shall be counted toward graduation. In addition to credits that students may earn in the daily high school schedule, the District shall make accessible a variety of other credit-earning options, including, but not limited to, correspondence courses, credit-by-examination, evening high school, summer high school to make up failed credits, dual-enrollment with colleges/ universities, and advanced standing/credit programs. All such alternatives shall be aligned with the Arkansas and LRSD curriculum standards and be approved by the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum. Senior Enrollment Requirements Effective fall 1999, each high school senior shall take at least four academic courses. Courses taken at post-secondary institutions by qualified seniors shall count as one or more of these required courses. Students are strongly encouraged to take a full schedule of challenging courses each year, including the senior year. Courses Required for Graduation Students shall satisfy the graduation requirements established in Policy IKFC through enrollment in and successful completion of the following specific courses. English Language Arts-4 units ESL English I, English I, or English I Pre-AP (1 )\nand ESL English II , English II, or English II Pre-AP (1 )\nand ESL English Ill, English Ill, English Ill Pre-AP, or English Ill AP (1 )\nand ESL English IV, English IV, or English IV AP (1 ). Each level of required English is a prerequisite for the next level. Students are not allowed, therefore, to take two required English courses concurrently. 9 Oral Communication-1 unit Communications I (1) Mathematics-3 units Algebra I or Algebra I Pre-AP ( 1 )\nand Concepts of Geometry or Geometry or Geometry Pre-AP (1 )\nand Algebra II or Algebra II Pre-AP or Statistics or Statistics AP (1). Algebra I Pre-AP or Geometry Pre-AP taken in grade 8 will satisfy one of the required units. Science-3 units Physics I or Physics I Pre-AP (1 )\nand Biology I or Biology I Pre-AP (1 )\nand Chemistry I or Chemistry I Pre-AP (1 ). Social Studies-3 units Civics or Civics Pre-AP (1) World History or World History Pre-AP (1) United States History or United States History AP (1) Fine Arts-1 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music. Health and Physical Education-1 unit Health and Safety (1/2) Physical Education (1/2) The one unit of physical education required may be waived (1) upon receipt of a statement by a licensed physician that a student is mentally or physically incapable of participating in a regular or modified physical education program\nor (2) when the requirement is contrary to the religious teachings of the student, as indicated in a written statement, signed by a lawful custodian of the student. Athletic practice for competition, whether scheduled during the school day or fter school hours, does not earn credit. Technology-1 unit One unit from the following technology application courses: Keyboarding Applications (1/2), Word Processing A (1/2), Word Processing B (1/2), Database Management (1/2), Desktop Publishing A (1/2), Desktop Publishing B (1/2), Programming A (1/2), Programming B (1/2), Computerized Business Applications (1 ), Computerized Accounting I or II. In no case can the same course(s) satisfy technology applications requirements and/or the technology applications requirements in one of the areas for Career Focus. Career Focus-3 units In addition to the LRSD Common Core, each graduate shall complete successfully a minimum of three units from one area of Career Focus, as follows: 10 Humanities Three units of one foreign language\nor Two units of one foreign language and One unit beyond the Common Core requirements from English or Social Studies (1 )\nor Three units beyond Common Core requirements in communications, English, and/or journalism\nor Three units beyond Common Core requirements in social studies. Sciences Two units of one foreign language (2) and One additional unit beyond Common Core requirements in science or mathematics (1 )\nor Three units beyond the Common Core requirements from upper-level mathematics and/or science courses (3). Sciences-Parkview Magnet-5 units Two units of biology beyond Biology I\nand One semester of chemistry beyond Chemistry I\nand Two units of German or Latin\nand One semester of Applied Statistics and Technical Writing\nand Yearly Project. Fine Arts Three units beyond the Common Core requirement in one of the following areas: art, dance, drama, or music. Students are also strongly encouraged to complete a minimum of two units of one foreign language. Fine Arts-Parkview Magnet-8 units Eight units in one of the following specialty areas: dance, drama, art, or music. Students are also strongly encouraged to complete a minimum of two units of one foreign language. Administrative Services Three units to include Word Processing A and B (1 ), Office Management or Cooperative Office Education (1 )\nand one unit from the following: Computerized Accounting 1-11 (1 ), Computerized Business Applications (1 ), Desktop Publishing A/B (1 ), Multimedia Applications (1/2), Rapid Writing A/B (1 ), Workplace Readiness (1/2). Written Communication-McClellan High-5  units Journalism I (1 )\nand Journalism II (1 )\nand Technical Writing (1/2) or Creative Writing (1/2)\nand Word Processing A (1/2) and Word Processing B (1/2)\nand 2 units of school-approved electives Oral Communication-McClellan High-5  units Communications (1 )\nand Drama I (1 )\nand Mass Media A (1/2) and Mass Media B (1/2)\nand Public Speaking/Business Communications (1/2)\nand 2 units of school-approved electives. II Visual/Product Communications-McClellan High-5  units Advertising (1/2)\nand Art Design/Graphic Design (1 )\nand Introduction to Art (1 )\nand Painting (1 )\nand Mass Media A (1/2)\nand 1  units of school-approved electives. Business Management Three units to include Computerized Accounting I or II* (1 ), Management (1) and one unit from the following: Business Law (1 ), Computerized Business Applications (1 ), Multimedia Applications (1/2), Word Processing A/B (1 ), Workplace Readiness (1/2) *The student must take Computerized Accounting II to satisfy this requirement if Computerized Accounting I was selected to fulfill the technology applications requirement. Business Principles and Management-McClellan High-5  units Computerized Business Applications (1) or two of the following: Word Processing A (1/2), Desktop Publishing (1/2), Database Management (1/2), Spreadsheet Applications (1/2)\nand Computerized Accounting I (1 )\nand Junior Executive Training (1 )\nand 2  units of school-approved electives. Finance Three units to include Banking and Finance Marketing (1/2), Banking and Finance Principles (1/2), Banking and Finance Operations (1/2), Banking and Finance Law (1/2) and Computerized Accounting I (1 )\nor Three units to include Computerized Accounting 1-11 and one unit from the following: Computerized Business Applications (1 ), Database Management (1/2), Spreadsheet Applications (1/2), Word Processing A (1/2), Word Processing B (1/2), Workplace Readiness (1/2). Economics and Finance-McClellan High-5  units Computerized Business Applications (1) or two of the following: Word Processing A (1/2), Desktop Publishing (1/2) Database Management (1/2), Spreadsheet Applications (1/2)\nand Economics (1) or Banking and Finance Principles (1/2) and Banking and Finance Operations (1/2)\nand Junior Executive Training (1 )\nand 2  units of school-approved electives. Marketing Three units to include Marketing (1 ), Marketing Management (1) and one from the following: Advertising (1/2), Computerized Business Applications (1 ), Fashion Merchandising (1/2) Entrepreneurship (1/2), Multimedia Applications (1/2), Retailing (1/2), Salesmanship (1/2), Workplace Readiness (1/2). Marketing and Advertising-McClellan High-5  units Advertising (1/2)\nand Fashion Merchandising (1/2)\nand Marketing (1 )\nand Marketing Management(1 )\nand 2  units of school-approved electives 12 Coordinated Career Education Three units to include CCE I-Related (1 ), CCE-OJT (1 ), and one unit from the following: Business Education, Marketing Education, Family and Consumer Science, Medical Professions Education, Trades and Industry, Workplace Readiness (1/2). Child Care and Guidance Management and Services Three units to include Child Care and Guidance Management and Services (1 }, Child Development (1 /2), Family and Consumer Science (1 ), and Parenting (1/2). Food Production, Management, and Services Three units to include Family and Consumer Science (1 }, Food and Nutrition (1/2), Food Production, Management, and Services I (1) and one-half unit from Family Dynamics (1 ), Food Science (1/2), Human Relations (1/2), Managing Resources (1/2), Workplace Readiness (1/2). Family and Consumer Sciences Education Three units to include Family and Consumer Science (1) and two units from the following: Child Development (1/2), Clothing Management (1/2), Family Dynamics (1), Food Science (1/2), Food and Nutrition (1/2), Housing and Interior Design (1/2), Human Relations (1/2), Managing Resources (1/2), Parenting (1/2), and Workplace Readiness (1/2). General Cooperative Education Three units to include GCE I-Related (1 ), GCE-OJT (1) and one unit from Business, Marketing, Family and Consumer Sciences, Medical Professions Education, or Trade and Industrial Education. Industrial Cooperative Education Three units from the following: Industrial Cooperative Training !--Related (1 ), Industrial Cooperative Training I (1 ), Industrial Cooperative Training II Related (1 }, Industrial Cooperative Training II (1 )\nJROTC Three units to include JROTC I, II, Ill. Trades and Industry Three units from any one of the following programs: Basic Mechanical Drawing (1 ), Advanced Mechanical Drawing (1 ), Architectural Drafting (1 ), Engineering Drafting (1 )\nComputerized Commercial Art I, II, Ill\nAuto Body/Paint Technology I, II, Ill\nAutomotive Technology I, II, Ill\nCulinary Arts I, II, Ill\nComputer-Aided Drafting I, 11, Ill\nComputer Graphics/Printing Technology I, 11, Ill\nCosmetology I, II, Ill\nElectronics I, II, Ill\nMedical Professions I, II, Ill\nMetal Fabrication (Welding) I, II, Ill\nRadio Broadcasting I, 11, Ill\nResidential Construction I, II, Ill\nTV Production I, II, Ill\nDiesel Technology Services I, II, Ill. Electives-4 units Total Required-24 units 13 Recommended Common Core and Career Focus-27 units Effective for the Graduating Class of 2003 In addition to the LRSD Common Core requirements outlined above for students graduating in 2002 or later, the Board of Education recommends, effective for the Graduating Class of 2003, the following enhanced and \"Recommended Common Core,\" which includes, but goes beyond those units required in Arkansas for unconditional admission to public colleges and universities and for eligibility for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarship. The \"Recommended Common Core\" includes the admission requirements of the most competitive universities in the United States of America. Students who choose a Career Focus in the Humanities or Sciences may already have satisfied some of the \"Recommended Common Core.\" Students are, of course, strongly encouraged to enroll in as many Pre-AP and AP courses as possible. LRSD Common Core-17 units AND: Social Studies-1 additional unit One additional unit from African/African-American History (1 }, European History AP (1 ), U.S. Government and Politics AP (1/2), Comparative Government (1/2), Economics (1/2), Sociology (1/2). Mathematics-1 additional unit One additional unit in advanced mathematics. The three units required for the LRSD Common Core must include Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra. Seniors are strongly encouraged to take a mathematics course during their senior year. Science-1 additional unit One additional unit. Foreign Language-2 additional units Two units of one foreign language, one unit of which may be completed in grade 8. Technology-1 additional unit One additional unit. Career Focus-1 additional unit One additional unit beyond the three units required for graduation. Total Recommended Common Core and Career Focus-27 units Remedial Courses The high school may offer and students may, with parent/guardian permIssIon, be placed in appropriate below-grade-level or remedial courses in English, reading, writing, and/or mathematics. Such courses, however, shall not count toward satisfaction of the specified courses in the core curriculum required for graduation. They may count as electives beyond the required Common Core. Transfer Students A student who transfers into an LRSD high school from another accredited high school shall immediately have his or her transcript evaluated and a graduation plan established that is developed in collaboration with the student and his/her parents/guardians. Transfer students shall be expected to complete the graduation requirements established for their graduation class. 14 The LRSD high school shall accept transfer credits and grades for students who previously attended accredited high schools, with the following exceptions: a. No credit shall be accepted for a course under the general classification of \"religion.\" b. No credit shall be accepted for remedial or below-level courses toward satisfaction of the LRSD Common Core requirements, although such credits may be counted as electives beyond the Common Core. c. Weights assigned to grades from other districts or schools shall not be honored by any LRSD high school. Rather, weights shall be assigned consistently for all students, including transfer students, to ensure fairness. rticipation in the Graduation eremony and Award of Diplo a In der to be a participant in th graduation ceremony, the s tlent must be within one-half unit of comp ng the graduation requ ire ents. All high school stu nts and their parents shall be informed in writing nually of this expect ion when course lists d graduation requirements are published for the sprin gistration process. Principals sha igible participants at the end of the junior year and each quarter orm students and their parents immediately if it is determined that the ng or has lost his/her el igibility to participate in the graduation ceremony. Such students shall b to, night high school, Learning Center. met. the appropriate credit-earning options, including, but not limited o, correspondence courses, and placement .at the Accelerated made until all graduation requirements have been The expect ons of th is section sh II be phased in as folio duation 1999-2000-200 Students may particip e if they are within one unit of completing the graduatio equirements. Graduation 2002 and 2003 Students may participate i ey are within one-half unit of completing the graduation requI ents. 15 Credit-Earning Options for LRSD Students In addition to the credits that students may earn in the traditional high school day at each of the LRSD high schools, students may alternatively earn high school and/or college credits in all of the following fourteen ways: 1. High school credits may be earned for courses taken in grade 8: Algebra I or Geometry taken in grade 8 Foreign Language-Level I or II taken in grade 8. 2. One unit may be earned each summer in the district's Summer High School program. 3. Credits may be earned in the LRSD Evening High School. 4. Concurrent high school and college credit may be earned in designated courses at Hall High School. 5. Dual-enrollment for high school and college credit is available at all high schools. 6. Two units of credit may be earned through approved correspondence courses. 7. Concurrent high school and college credit may be earned for approved correspondence courses. 8. College credit may be earned for certain correspondence courses taken while in high school. 9. Preparation courses for the GED or high school credits and a high school diploma may be earned by selected students at the Accelerated Learning Center. 10. Advanced standing/credit at Pulaski Tech, ITT, and Arkansas State University at Beebe may be earned for successful completion of certain LRSD high school and/or Metropolitan courses. 11 . College credit may be earned by attaining a minimum score of \"3\" on Advanced Placement Examinations. 12. High school credit may be earned during pre-approved summer institutes sponsored by colleges and universities. 13. High school credit may potentially be earned through approved online courses. Approval of one or more programs is pending. 14. High school credit may potentially be earned through earning a minimum grade on an end-of-course examination (credit by examination). Approval of this option is pending. 16 I. Credit for Courses Taken in Middle Schools Middle School Curriculum-Area Schools Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Reading/Writing Workshop 6 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 7 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 8 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 6 Pre-AP (1 period) Reading/Writing Workshop 7 Pre-AP (1 period) Reading/Writing Workshop 8 Pre-AP (1 period) Mathematics 6 or Mathematics 7 or Mathematics 8 or Mathematics 6 Pre-AP Mathematics 7 Pre-AP Mathematics 8 Pre-AP or Algebra I Pre-AP for high school credit Science 6 or Science 7 or Science 8 or Science 6 Pre-AP Science 7 Pre-AP Science 8 Pre-AP (Both include Family Life Education and Drug Education.) (Both include Drug Education.) Social Studies 6 or Social Studies 7 or Social Studies 8 or Social Studies 6 Pre-AP Social Studies 7 Pre-AP Social Studies 8 Pre-AP Physical Education and Health (full year integrated course: Career Orientation (semester\nrequired for all grade 7 The school will offer choices from the list below, and includes Drug Education) students) and Arkansas History (semester\nrequired by the students will select, based on the school's schedule, State of Arkansas) one or more semesters of electives: Keyboarding (semester) (required in either grade 6 or 7) Keyboarding (semester\nrequired for all students who did Band 8, Choir 8, or Orchestra 8 (full year) not complete this course in grade 6) Art 8 (full year) The school will offer choices from the list below, and The school will offer choices from the list below, and Research and Writing 8 Pre-AP (full year) students will select, based on the school's schedule, students will select, based on the school's schedule, Foreign Language I (Level I for high school credit) one or more semesters of electives: one or more semesters of electives: Foreign Language II (Level II for high school credit for Band 6, Choir 6, or Orchestra 6 (full year) Band 7, Choir 7, or Orchestra 7 (full year) students who completed Level I in grade 7) Art 6 (full year) Art 7 (full year) Write On! 8 (full year) Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP (full year\nstrongly Research and Writing 7 Pre-AP (full year) TV Writing and Production (full year) recommended for grade 6 students) Foreign Language I (full year of Level I) Family and Consumer Science 8 (full year) Exploratory Foreign Language and Culture 6 (full year\ntwo Write On! 7 (full year) or three languages, depending upon the school) Exploratory Art 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Art 7-8 (semester) Expressions! 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Art 6 (semester) Expressions! 7-8 (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Music 6 (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Music 7-8 (semester) Expressions! 6 (semester) Exploratory Music 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7 -8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications 7-8 (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) *The Pre-AP (Advanced Placement) series of courses offered m the core areas are the same as the previously designated honors, advanced, enriched, and/or 91fted/talented courses. Titles have simply been standardized for grades 6-12. 17 Grade 6 Reading/Writing Workshop 6 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 6 Pre-AP (1 period) or Reading/Writing Workshop 6 GT (1 period) Mathematics 6 or Mathematics 6 Pre-AP or Mathematics 6 GT (Pre-Algebra) Science 6 or Science 6 Pre-AP or Science 6 GT Social Studies 6 or Social Studies 6 Pre-AP or Social Studies 6 GT Physical Education and Health (full year integrated course\nincludes Drug Education) IS Magnet Courses: Dunbar magnet students must take either a Foreign Language or International Studies course in each grade. Exploratory Foreign Language and Culture 6 (full year\nincludes French, German, Spanish, and Latin) and/or one of the following: Planet Earth 6-7 (full year) Seminar 6 (full year) Global Expressions 6-7 (full year) The school will offer choices from the list below, and students will select, based on the school's schedule, one or more semesters of electives. Band 6, Choir 6, or Orchestra 6 (full year) Art 6 (full year) Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP (full year\nstrongly recommended) Research and Writing 6 GT (full year) Keyboarding (semester) and Exploratory Art/Music (semester). Dunbar Middle School Curriculum Little Rock School District Grade 7 Grade 8 Reading/Writing Workshop 7 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 8 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 7 Pre-AP (1 period) or Reading/Writing Workshop 8 Pre-AP (1 period) or Reading/Writing Workshop 7 GT (1 period) Reading/Writing Workshop 8 GT (1 period) Mathematics 7 or Mathematics 8 or Mathematics 7 Pre-AP (Pre-Algebra) or Mathematics 8 Pre-AP or Algebra I Pre-AP (GT) Algebra I Pre-AP for high school credit or Geometry for high school credit Science 7 or Science 8 or Science 7 Pre-AP Science 8 Pre-AP or Science 7 GT Science 8 GT (Both include Family Life Education and Drug Education.) (Both include Drug Education.) Social Studies 7 or Social Studies 8 or Social Studies 7 Pre-AP or Social Studies 8 Pre-AP Social Studies 7 GT Social Studies 8 GT Career Orientation (semester\nrequired for all grade 7 IS Magnet Courses: Dunbar magnet students must take students) and Arkansas History (semester\nrequired by either a Foreign Language or International Studies course State of Arkansas) in each grade. Keyboarding (semester\nrequired for all students who did Foreign Language 1-11 (Level II for high school credit for not complete this course in grade 6) students who completed Level I in grade 7) IS Magnet Courses: Dunbar magnet students must take and/or one of the following: either a Foreign Language or International Studies course Arkansas' World Connections (full year) in each grade. Seminar 8 (full year) Foreign Language I (full year of Level I) International Money 7-8 (full year) and/or one of the following: Leaders of the 21 st Century 8 (full year) Planet Earth 6-7 (full year) African Studies 7-8 (full year) Seminar 7 (full year) African Studies 7-8 (full year) The school will offer choices from the list below, and Global Expressions 6-7 (full year) students will select, based on the school's schedule, International Money 7-8 (full year) one or more semesters of electives. Band 8, Choir 8, or Orchestra 8 (full year) The school will offer choices from the list below, and Art 8 (full year) students will select, based on the school's schedule, Research and Writing 8 Pre-AP (full year) one or more semesters of electives. Research and Writing 8 GT (full year) Band 7, Choir 7, or Orchestra 7 (full year) Foreign Language I (Level I for high school credit) Art 7 (full year) Write On! 8 (full year) Research and Writing 7 Pre-AP (full year) Family and Consumer Science 8 (full year) Research and Writing 7 GT (full year) Write On! 7 (full year) Exploratory Art 7-8 (semester) Expressions! 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Art 7-8 (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Expressions! 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Music 7-8 (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Music 7-8 (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) . Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) The Pre-AP (Advanced Placement) series of courses offered m the core areas are the same as the previously designated honors, advanced, and/or enriched courses. Titles have simply been standardized for grades 6-12. Since Dunbar is a gifted/talented magnet, this school also offers GT-level courses in the core curriculum areas. 18 Grade 6 Reading/Writing Workshop 6 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 6 Pre-AP* (1 period) Mathematics 6 or Mathematics 6 Pre-AP* Science 6 or Science 6 Pre-AP* (1 period for area students) or Science 6 and Health Science 6 (2 periods for magnet students) or Science 6 Pre-AP* and Health Science 6* Pre-AP (2 periods for magnet students) Social Studies 6 or Social Studies 6 Pre-AP* Physical Education and Health (full year integrated course\nincludes Drug Education) Keyboarding (semester) (required in either grade 6 or 7) The school will offer choices from the list below, and students will select, based on the school's schedule, one or more semesters of electives: Band 6, Choir 6, or Orchestra 6 (full year) Art 6 (full year) Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP (full year\nstrongly recommended) Exploratory Foreign Language and Culture 6 (full year\ntwo or three languages depending on the school) Exploratory Art 6 (semester) Exploratory Music 6 (semester) Expressions! 6 (semester) Henderson Middle School Curriculum Little Rock School District Grade 7 Grade 8 Reading/Writing Workshop 7 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 8 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 7 Pre-AP* (1 period) Reading/Writing Workshop 8 Pre-AP* (1 period) Mathematics 7 or Mathematics 8 or Mathematics 7 Pre-AP* Mathematics 8 Pre-AP* or Algebra I Pre-AP for high school credit Science 7 or Science 7 Pre-AP* (1 period for area Science 8 or Science 8 Pre-AP* (1 period for area students) or students) or Science 7 and Health Science 7 (2 periods for magnet Science 8 and Health Science 8 (2 periods for magnet students) or students) or Science 7 Pre-AP* and Health Science 7 Pre-AP* (2 Science 8 Pre-AP* and Health Science 8 Pre-AP* (2 periods for magnet students) periods for magnet students) (All include Family Life Education and Drug Education.) (All include Drug Education.) Social Studies 7 or Social Studies 8 or Social Studies 7 Pre-AP Social Studies 8 Pre-AP* Career Orientation (semester\nrequired for all grade 7 The school will offer choices from the list below, and students) and Arkansas History (semester\nrequired by the students will select, based on the school's schedule, State of Arkansas) one or more semesters of electives: Keyboarding (semester\nrequired for all students who did Band 8, Choir 8, or Orchestra 8 (full year) not complete this course in grade 6) Art 8 (full year) The school will offer choices from the list below, and Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP (full year) students will select, based on the school's schedule, Foreign Language I (Level I for high school credit) one or more semesters of electives: Foreign Language II (Level II for high school credit for Band 7, Choir 7, or Orchestra 7 (full year) students who completed Level I in grade 7) Art 7 (full year) Write On! 8 (full year) Research and Writing 7 Pre-AP (full year) Family and Consumer Science 8 (full year) Foreign Language I (full year of Level I) Write On! 7 (full year) Exploratory Art 7-8 (semester) Expressions! 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Art 7-8 (semester) Expressions! 7-8 (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Music 7-8 (semester) Exploratory Music 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications 7-8 (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) Henderson Health Science Magnet: Henderson Health Science Magnet: Seminar in Health Science (semester\nrecommended) Scientific Illustration (semester\nrecommended) Seminar in Health Science (full year\nrecommended) Technical Writing (semester\nrecommended) Scientific Illustration (semester\nrecommended) Technical Writing (semester\nrecommended) * . . The Pre-AP (Advanced Placement) series of courses offered m the core areas are the same as the previously designated honors, advanced, enriched, and/or gifted/talented courses. Titles have simply been standardized for grades 6-12. 19 Arts Grade 6 Reading/Writing Workshop 6 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 6 Pre-AP* (1 period) and French/Spanish/German/Study Skills (1 period) Mathematics 6 or Mathematics 6 Pre-AP* Science/Health 6 or Science/Health 6 Pre-AP' Social Studies 6 or Social Studies 6 Pre-AP' Choose one of the following: Band I, Orchestra I, Choir I, Art I, Dance I, or Speech and Communications The school will offer choices from the list below, and students will select, based on the school's schedule, one or more semesters of electives: Band I, Choir II, or Orchestra Ill (full year) Art I (full year) Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP (full year) Physical Education 6 (full year) Speech and Communications (full year) Dance I (full year) Piano I (full year) Physical Education 6 (semester) Keyboarding (semester) *The Pre-AP (Advanced Placement) series of courses offered in the core areas are the same as the previously designated honors, advanced, enriched, and/or gifted/talented courses. Titles have simply been standardized for grades 6-12. Mann Magnet Middle School Curriculum Little Rock School District Grade 7 Grade 8 Reading/Writing Workshop 7 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 8 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 7 Pre-AP* (1 period) Reading/Writing Workshop 8 Pre-AP* (1 period) Mathematics 7 or Mathematics 8 or Mathematics 7 Pre-AP' Mathematics 8 Pre-AP* or Algebra I Pre-AP* for high school credit Science 7 or Science 8 or Science 7 Pre-AP' Science 8 Pre-AP* (Both include Family Life Education and Drug Education.) (Both include Drug Education.) Social Studies 7 or Social Studies 8 or Social Studies 7 Pre-AP' Social Studies 8 Pre-AP' Choose one of the following in area of concentration: Keyboarding (semester\nrequired if not taken in grade 6 Band 1-11, Orchestra 1-11, Choir 1-11, Art 1-11, Dance 1-11, or 7) Speech and Communications, or Drama Career Orientation (semester) and Arkansas History Choose one of the following in area of concentration: (semester\nrequired by State of Arkansas) Band 1-11-111, Orchestra 1-11-111, Choir 1-11-111, Art 1-11-111, Dance 1-11-111, Speech and Communications, Drama, or Theatre The school will offer choices from the list below, and The school will offer choices from the list below, and students will select, based on the school's schedule, students will select, based on the school's schedule, one or more semesters of electives: one or more semesters of electives: Band 1-11, Choir 1-11, or Orchestra I- 11 (full year) Band 1-11-111, Choir 1-11-111, or Orchestra 1-11-111 (full year) Art 1-11 (full year) Art 1-11-111 (full year) Research and Writing 7 Pre-AP (full year) Research and Writing 8 Pre-AP (full year) French I, German I, or Spanish I (full year) French I, II, German I, II, or Spanish I, II (for one year of Speech and Communications (full year) high school credit) Drama (full year) Speech and Communications (full year) Dance 1-11 (full year) Drama (full year) Piano 1-11 (full year) Theatre (full year) Physical Education 7-8 (full year) Dance 1-11-111 (full year) Piano 1-11-111 (full year) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (full year) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester 20 Science Grade 6 Reading/Writing Workshop 6 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 6 Pre-AP (1 period) and French/Spanish/German/Study Skills (1 period) Mathematics 6 or Mathematics 6 Pre-AP Science/Health 6 or Science/Health 6 Pre-AP Lab Science 6 or Lab Science 6 Pre-AP Social Studies 6 or Social Studies 6 Pre-AP The school will offer choices from the list below, and students will select, based on the school's schedule, one or more semesters of electives: Band I, Choir I, or Orchestra I (full year) Art I (full year) Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP (full year) Physical Education 6 (full year) Speech and Communications (full year) Dance I (full year) Piano I (full year) Keyboarding (semester) Exploratory Art/Music/German (semester) Physical Education 6 (semester) The Pre-AP (Advanced Placement) series of courses offered in the core areas are the same as the previously designated honors, advanced, enriched, and/or gifted/talented courses. Titles have simply been standardized for grades 6-12. Mann Magnet Middle School Curriculum Little Rock School District Grade 7 Grade 8 Reading/Writing Workshop (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 8 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 7 Pre-AP (1 period) Reading/Writing Workshop 8 Pre-AP (1 period) Mathematics 7 or Mathematics 8 or Mathematics 7 Pre-AP Mathematics 8 Pre-AP or Algebra I Pre-AP for high school credit Science 7 or Science 8 or Science 7 Pre-AP Science 8 Pre-AP (Both include Family Life Education and Drug Education.) (Both include Drug Education.) Lab Science 7 or Lab Science 8 or Lab Science 7 Pre-AP Lab Science 8 Pre-AP Social Studies 7 or Social Studies 8 or Social Studies 7 Pre-AP Social Studies 8 Pre-AP Career Orientation (semester) and Arkansas History Keyboarding (semester\nrequired if not taken in grade 6 (semester\nrequired by the State of Arkansas) or7) The school will offer choices from the list below, and The school will offer choices from the list below, and students will select, based on the school's schedule, students will select, based on the school's schedule, one or more semesters of electives: one or more semesters of electives: Band 1-11, Choir 1-11, or Orchestra 1-11 (full year) Band 1-11-111, Choir 1-11-111, or 1-11-111 (full year) Art 1-11 (full year) Art 1-11-111 (full year) Research and Writing 7 Pre-AP (full year) Research and Writing 8 Pre-AP (full year) French I, German I, or Spanish I (full year) French I, II, German I, II, or Spanish I, II (for one year of Speech and Communications (full year) high school credit) Drama (full year) Speech and Communications (full year) Dance 1-11 (full year) Drama (full year) Piano 1-11 (full year) Theatre (full year) Physical Education 7-8 (full year) Dance 1-11-111 (full year) Piano 1-11-111 (full year) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (full year) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding (semester) Family and Work Connections 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications (semester) Physical Education 7-8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Keyboarding Applications (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) Computer Technology 7-8 (semester) Industrial Technology 7-8 (semester) 21 Parameters for Middle Schools: 1. Campus Leadership Teams are charged with the responsibility of designing the elective program in each middle school from the list of approved courses above. Teams are encouraged to build on the school community's strengths, interests, and needs. 2. Each school must offer the option of a full-year music, art, and foreign language program at each grade, 6-8. 3. Schools may design seven-period daily schedules, seven- or eight-period A/8 schedules, but not eight-period daily schedules. 4. The two-period Reading/Writing Workshop in grades 6-8 for regular-level students is to be taught by the same teacher, and schools are strongly encouraged to schedule those two periods back to back. 5. Teacher teams must have at least one planning period in common for collaborative planning and assessment of student work, discussion of student progress toward achievement of rigorous curriculum standards, parent communication, and professional development. 6. Both Mathematics 8 Pre-AP and Algebra I Pre-AP will be offered in 1999-2000 and 2000-01 in all middle schools, and then one or the other courses will be dropped from the curriculum since by then the new middle school mathematics curriculum will be fully implemented. 7. Cloverdale and Dunbar will continue to offer the appropriate ESL classes for second-language students. 8. Students can earn high school credit for Algebra I Pre-AP and/or Level I or Level II of a foreign language taken in grade 8. These courses taken at grade 7 do not earn high school credit. 9. Individual schools shall offer additional support/special classes, with the approval of the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, to meet their goal of providing appropriate personalized educational programs and services to meet specific student needs. Examples of such classes are special assistance classes in reading, writing, and/or mathematics\nspecial classes, for instance, for dyslexic students\nprograms to prevent drop-outs\ninschool suspension programs\nspecial sections of classes for second-language students\nand, of course, special education classes. 22 II. Credit for Courses Taken in Summer High School The 1999 Summer School Plan was under construction when this Catalog was compiled. Schools will receive information about Summer School as soon as it is ready. High school students will be able to earn one credit during summer school. Ill. Credit for Courses Taken in Evening High School Information about the Evening High School Program is available through Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, Director. IV. Dual-Enrollment for High School and College Credit for Designated Courses Taken at Hall High Effective fall 1999, students may earn dual credit for designated courses at Hall High School. V. Dual-Credit for College Courses Board Policy IHCD It is the policy of the Board of Education that any Little Rock School District student who has successfully completed the eighth grade shall be eligible to enroll in a publicly-supported community college or four-year college or university in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by each institution in consultation with the State Board of Higher Education. A student who enrolls in and successfully completes a course or courses offered by an institution of higher education shall be entitled to receive appropriate academic credit in both the institution of higher education and the district school in which such student is enrolled, which credit shall be applicable to graduation requirements. Administrative Regulation IHCD R-1 The Little Rock School District will grant credit for college courses as detailed in LRSD Policy IHCD. The District establishes conditions that must be met if the college course is to be substituted for a specific course that is required for graduation. Otherwise, the course will be counted as elective credit and will be applied to the electives required for graduation. 1. Any college course or college summer enrichment program that is to be substituted for a specific LRSD graduation requirement must be submitted to the Principal for approval prior to enrollment in the course or program. 2. A one-semester college course of three (3) hours' length will equal one-half unit of high school credit. Summer enrichment experiences must include a minimum of sixty (60) hours of instruction to equal one-half unit of high school credit. 3. A transcript of a successfully completed college course or documentation of successful completion of a college summer enrichment program must be presented to the school registrar before credit will be awarded. 4. If a student requests to receive high school credit for college summer enrichment program that is substituted for a specific course that is required for graduation, he/she must successfully complete an examination administered by an LRSD curriculum supervisor. 5. Both the Principal of the affected school and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction must approve any exception to these conditions. 23 VI. Credit through Correspondence Courses University of Arkansas Regulations for Correspondence Courses-lKEC-R-2 In order to provide consistent guidelines and procedures for correspondence courses in senior high schools within the Little Rock School District, the following regulations have been established: 1. Only two (2) units of credit earned through correspondence may count toward graduation. 2. Students may not receive credit for \"advancement\" without prior approval of the principal and/or designee. 3. The principal and/or designee must approve all requests for students to take correspondence courses. 4. A record of the course approval with time constraints, e.g., course beginning and ending, will be monitored and retained by the guidance department. Options . LRSD students may take correspondence courses for high school credit under the parameters of the Board's policy. This option may meet the needs of the following students: (1) students who wish to accelerate graduation\n(2) students who wish to make up a failed course\n(3) students who lose credit in a course due to excessive absence\n(4) students who wish to earn concurrent college and high school credit for certain courses\n(5) students who wish to get started in earning college credit while in high school\n(6) students who prefer independent study to classroom study\n(7) students who do not have time in the school day to take everything they wish\n(8) ESL students who may be able to read and write in English better than they can speak and listen at this stage of their development. Costs Costs to the student for correspondence courses taken with the University of Arkansas include the following: (1) tuition\n(2) textbook rental or purchase\n(3) course outline and supplies\n(4) postage and handling\nand (5) examination fee. All fees are payable at the time of enrollment. Students should see their counselors for the current total costs of each course. LRSD Approved High School Courses University of Arkansas Course Little Rock School District Equivalent ENGL 9A English 9A (first semester) English I ENGL 9B English 9B (second semester) ENGL 10A English 10A (first semester) English II ENGL 1 0A English 1 OB (second semester) ENGL 11A English 11A (first semester) English Ill ENGL 11 B English 11 B (second semester) ENGL 12A English 12A (first semester) English IV ENGL 12B English 12B (second semester) LA TN IA Latin IA (first semester) Latin I LATN IB Latin IB (second semester) SPAN IA Spanish IA (first semester) Spanish I SPAN IB Spanish IB (second semester) SPAN IIA Spanish IIA (first semester) Spanish II SPAN IIB Spanish IIB (second semester) FREN IA French IA (first semester) French I FREN IB French IB (second semester) ALGB 9A Algebra 9A (first semester) Algebra I ALGB 9B Algebra 9B (second semester) 24 GEOM 10A Geometry 10A (first semester) Geometry GEOM 1 OB Geometry 1 OB (second semester) CIVI 9A Civics 9A (first semester) Civics CIVI 9B Civics 9B (second semester) HIST 1 0A World History 1 0A (first semester) World History HIST 10B World History 10B (second semester) GEOG 1A World Geography IA (first World Geography semester) GEOG 1 B World Geography IB (second semester) HIST 11 A United States History 11 A (first United States History semester) HIST 11 B United States History 11 B (second semester) GLOB I Global Studies (first semester) Global Studies GLOB II Global Studies (second semester) GOVT A American Government A (first American Government semester) GOVT B American Government B (second semester) SOCI I Sociology (one semester) Sociology (one semester) VII. LRSD Approved Dual-Credit Correspondence Courses The University of Arkansas allows high school students, with the approval of the principal, to take freshmen-level college courses and receive both college and high school credit. The following college-level courses are approved for high school academic credit in LRSD. UA College-Level Course LRSD Equivalent Course ENSC 1003 Environmental Science Environmental Science (one semester) FREN 1003 Elementary French I French I FREN 1013 Elementary French II GERM 1003 Elementary German I German I GERM 1013 Elementary German II SPAN 1003 Elementary Spanish I Spanish I SPAN 1013 Elementary Spanish II VIII. Early College Correspondence Enrollment LRSD students may take any other college-level correspondence course approved by the University of Arkansas for college credit and for elective credit in any LRSD high school. (See Policy IHCD and regulations above.) In other words, college freshman-level correspondence courses not listed above may be taken for college credit and for elective credit in LRSD. 25 IX. Accelerated Learning Program (ACC) The Accelerated Learning Program (ACC) is a unique approach to providing effective education for those students in the Little Rock School District who have been identified as needing a flexible, nontraditional learning environment. This program offers the student an opportunity to accelerate and complete required course work needed for a GED or a high school diploma. Because of the Accelerated Learning Center's approach, no extracurricular activities are offered. The criteria for admission follow:  Student is not age-appropriate for current grade level (18 or older).  Student has no category 2 or 3 offenses within one year of application for entry.  Student must have attained a minimum of five credits.  Student eligibility must include one or more of the following: Poor school attendance Failure of two or more courses Currently pregnant or a parent Qualifies for services under IDEA or 504 Record of retention for two or more school years.  Student must complete screening process, including student and parent/guardian interview. 26 X. Advanced Standing/Credit Agreements Articulation Agreements: Pulaski Technical College LRSD has an agreement with Pulaski Technical College, which authorizes the award of Advanced Standing Credit through articulation for the course and areas designated below. College credit for the approved articulated high school courses will only be granted upon completion of an Associate of Applied Science Degree in the designated area of study. Students may receive Advanced Standing at Pulaski Technical College by enrolling in and earning at least a \"B\" in the following LRSD courses: I. Office Technology: Applied Associate Degree LRSD High School Course Pulaski Technical Course Credit Hours Keyboarding Applications Keyboarding 3 Word Processing I Word Processing 4 Word Processing II Advanced Word Processing 4 Computerized Accounting I Accounting I 3 Computer Technology: Computer Fundamentals 3 Business Applications Rapid Writing I and II Speed Writing/Super Write 3 Total: 20 II. Computer Information Systems: Applied Associate Degree The student must apply for articulated course credit, submitting the high school transcript, instructor's recommendation, and any required competency attainment documentation. LRSD High School Course Pulaski Technical Course Credit Hours Computer Technology: Computer Concepts 3 Business Applications Computerized Accounting I Accounting I 3 2 of the following may be used for elective courses: Word Processing I Word Processing 4 Word Processing II Advanced Word Processing 4 Rapid Writing I and 11 Superwrite 3 Total: 13/14 Ill. Transportation Technologies: Applied Associate Degree *It is strongly recommended that students complete ASE examinations prior to enrollment at Pulaski Technical College. Metropolitan Course Pulaski Technical Course Credit Hours Engine Repair AST 2306 Engine Repair 6 Engine Performance* AST 2210 Engine 10 Performance Brakes* AST 1405 Automotive Brake 5 System Automotive Electric AST 2409 Electrical 9 Fundamentals Automotive Suspension* AST 2105 Chassis and 5 Steering Total: 35 27 IV. Electronics Technology *Courses will be taken at the home high school. Metropolitan Course Pulaski Technical Course Electronics Technology I DC Circuits Electronic Technology II AC Circuits *Unified Physics I or Applied Physics Principles of Technology 1-11 *Computer Technology: Computer Fundamentals Business Applications Credit Hours 4 4 3 3 Total: 14 28 Articulation Agreements: ITT Technical Institute ITT will authorize advanced credit through articulation specific skills offered at both institutions. After mastery of the required skill, the high school faculty will submit a signed competency record to the Director of Recruitment and Education at ITT Technical Institute. The college will grant advanced standing to high school students. Credit will be granted upon completion of an Associate of Applied Science degree in their designated area of study. Students must enroll in ITT within two years after graduating from high school. I. Computer-Aided Drafting/Design Technology Metropolitan Course ITT Course Credit Hours Drafting and Design/GADD Principles of Drafting 5 Engineering Drafting and Drafting/CAD Laboratory 4 Design/ CADD-CAM-CNC College Mathematics Mathematics 1 Computer Literacy Computer Literacy I 2 Psychology Success Orientation NC Total: 12 II. Electronics Engineering Technology Metropolitan Course ITT Course Credit Hours Electronics Technology I Principles of Electronics I 5 Electronics Technology II Electronics Laboratory I 2 Mathematics Mathematics 4 Computer Literacy Computer Literacy 2 Psychology Success Orientation NC Total: 12 Articulation Agreements: Arkansas State University-Beebe Articulation with Arkansas State University-Beebe will be via process of course credit. The college will grant \"Advanced Standing through Articulated Programs Credit.\" Upon completion of the indicated vocational course at Metropolitan, students whose names appear on a signed Application for Articulated Credit will be eligible for articulated credit. The student will not have to pay tuition earned by articulation. I. Electronics Metropolitan Course ASU Course Credit Hours Introduction to CAD (year 1) EGT 11024 Introduction to 4 CAD Mechanical Drafting EGT 11014 Intermediate 4 Drafting OR Architectural Drafting EGT 21084 Architectural 4 Drafting Total: 8 29 XI. Credit Earned for Success on Advanced Placement Examinations Placement Criteria for Pre-Advanced Placement (Pre-AP) and Advanced Placement (AP) Courses The Little Rock School District offers Pre-AP and AP courses in several content areas: English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign language, computer science, art, and music. Students are placed in these courses based on established criteria. Pre-AP and AP courses are designed to give students experiences in college-preparatory and college-level courses. Each secondary school must identify as many students as possible for these courses if the school and the district are to meet the challenging goals established in three critical planning documents: the LRSD Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and the National Science Foundation project in mathematics and science: LRSD Strategic Plan Objectives  No later than the year 2003, no fewer than 9 out of 10 sfudents will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum.  By 2003, the percentage of students in every identified sub-group of race and gender ... performing at the highest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests shall be at least 30%. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Three important sections of the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan follow: Section 2/5. 2.6 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. Section 2/5. 2.6.1 LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging AfricanAmerican students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Section 2/5. 2.6.2 LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-Americans in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Determining Placement in Pre-AP and AP Courses In determining placement in Pre-AP and AP courses, the following criteria are considered: 1. High-level reading comprehension and writing skills as evidenced by standardized test data and classroom performance. 2. Critical and creative thinking skills. 3. Self-motivation. 4. B average or above. 5. High interest in content area. 6. Ability to perform independent study with high degree of motivation. 7. High level of task commitment. 8. Placement in mathematics determined by interest and path that began in seventh grade. A student does not have to have all of these characteristics\nhowever, these abilities and/or behaviors are considered in placement of students in the core subjects. This process helps to ensure success and proper placement of students. Important Note: A student does not have to be identified for the gifted program in order to enroll in a Pre-AP or AP course at any level. 30 National Science Foundation Cooperative Agreement One of the most important needs identified in the LRSD grant proposal to NSF was as follows: \"A need exists for students to begin preparation to enter high school Advanced Placement mathematics and science courses and other upper level mathematics and science courses while they are still in elementary and junior high school. Many students, even if they meet the course prerequisites for upper level courses, have not acquired the type of skills and content knowledge that is required to be confident about their ability to succeed in these courses. The pre-requisite skills and the confidence they engender are both critical elements in increasing the number of students in AP and other upper level mathematics and science courses. This is particularly true for some minorities who may not be well represented among upper classmen who are currently enrolled in these courses.\" The contract that the district signed with NSF includes the following commitments: The overall mission of the program is to develop systemic approaches that will substantially increase the number of students enrolling in and successfully completing precollege science, engineering, and math courses. This increased enrollment should result in a quantifiable and long-term increase in the number of participating students who complete the \"college preparatory sequence of courses\" in secondary school, graduate, and pursue undergraduate majors in science, engineering, or mathematics. The increase in the number of well-prepared high school graduates will contribute to the national agenda to increase the number of students receiving B.S. degrees in natural sciences, engineering, and academic disciplines by the year 2003. In order to achieve these goals, the current graduation rate of wellprepared high school \"college preparatory tract\" graduates must be substantially increased and, at a minimum, doubled in the next five years. In addition, all high school students must, by the end of the five-year period, be positioned to enroll in Algebra I, the primary gatekeeping course for all college preparatory science and mathematics courses by the year 2003. The specific goals of the project are as follows:  Increase by 2% after Year I of the agreement the composite scores of underrepresented minority students in grades 2-11 on the SAT9. For each subsequent year of the agree, increase by 5%.  Enroll all district eighth and/or ninth grade students in Algebra I by the Year 2003.  Increase the algebra success rates for all district students by 2% after Year I of the agreement\n5% after Year II\n5% after Year Ill\n5% after year IV\nand 5% after Year V.  Increase the numbers of students who enroll in geometry and trigonometry by 2% in Year I of the agreement\n5% in Year II and each year thereafter.  Increase the student success rates in geometry and trigonometry by 2% after Year I and 5% each year thereafter.  Increase the student enrollment rates and student success rates in biology by 2% in Year 1 and 5% each year thereafter.  Increase the student success rates in biology by 2% in Year I\n5% each year thereafter.  Increase the student success rates in chemistry from 62% in Year I of the agreement to 75% in Year V.  Increase the student enrollment in physics from 17% to 30% by Year V of the agreement.  Increase the numbers of students who graduate with proficiency in science and mathematics from 40% to 70% by Year V of the agreement. 31 XI I. Credit Earned through University/College Summer Programs Students may receive high school credit for certain college/university sponsored summer programs if the programs are pre-approved by the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. The courses will be approved if they are aligned with the appropriate Arkansas Curriculum Framework and if they include adequate numbers of clock hours to meet the State's accreditation requirements. XI 11. Credit Earned through Distance Learning District officials are investigating potential opportunities for students to earn high school credit through online courses. If and when a program is approved, high school principals and counselors will be notified. XIV. Credit by Examination District officials are investigating potential opportunities for students to earn high school credit through examination. If and when a program is approved, high school principals and counselors will be notified. 32 .. Miscellaneous Policies and Regulations Relating to Instruction Administrative Directive EPS: 118-Minimum Class Size A class must have at least fifteen (15) students enrolled before it may be scheduled for a course offering. Resource classes are the exception to this rule. Any modification in this directive must be approved by the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools. Policy IKFA: Early Graduation The Little Rock School District Board of Directors believes that with rare exception the many benefits of a high school education cannot be fully real ized in less than four years. Further, it views the entire senior year as an important period during which the student should be able to enjoy many experiences providing academic growth and enrichment. Only in unusual or extenuating circumstances should a student forego the opportunities available during the senior year. But for those who may have special needs or goals and who would benefit from early graduation, procedures are established through regulations. Regulation IKFA-R: Regulation for Early Graduation If the applicant meets the above requirements, the student will submit a written request for early graduation to the high school principal prior to the beginning of the fifth (5th ) semester. If the student requests to graduate at the end of the seventh (7) semester, the request must be made prior to the beginning of the sixth (6th ) semester. A plan for early graduation will be reviewed in a conference to include the student, counselor, parents, and the high school principal. After a complete evaluation of the request, the principal will make a final decision on the request and forward that decision to the Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development. Graduation If early graduation is approved, the student may participate in commencement exercises on the same basis as regular graduates. Students who do not wish to participate in commencement exercises will receive their diploma as soon as practical after the exercises. Administrative Directive IKA: Selection of Honor Graduates (for the Class of 2002 and prior\nthe new regulations on the Honors Seal are effective for the Class of 2003) An honor graduate must have attained a 3.5 GPA in grades 9-12 in regular, enriched, or honors courses. Grades for ALL EIGHT SEMESTERS must be used. PLEASE NOTE: New Board Policies, Regulations, and Administrative Directives Coming! The \"Instruction\" section of the Board's policy book, as well as the related Administrative Directives and Regulations, will be revised and updated during spring 1999. Many changes and additions are anticipated. It is important that all staff refer to these documents frequently in the transition of implementation. 33 Course Numbering Code All secondary courses, grades 6-12, are numbered and maintained in the office of the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. Any requests for additional numbers to facilitate scheduling must be directly to that office. No school is authorized to add numbers on its own. All courses must be approved by the Board of Education, and all course numbers have to be approved by the Associate Superintendent for Instruction and be in the centrally maintained file. Any requests for new courses must be made through the fall process established for adding or modifying courses. All LRSD courses have six digits. The code used to number courses follows: The first two digits designate the subject area. 02xxxx = Art 03xxxx = Business Education 05xxxx = Communications, Drama, English, ESL, Journalism 06xxxx = Foreign Languages 08xxxx = Driver Education, Health, Physical Education 09xxxx = Family and Consumer Science 11 xxxx = Mathematics 12xxxx = Dance, Music 13xxxx = Science 15xxxx = 16xxxx = 17xxxx = 19xxxx = 20xxxx = 26xxxx = Social Studies Metropolitan Marketing Education, Trades and Industry Special Education Non-Credit JROTC The third digit designates the grade level at which a course may first be taught. Xx6xxx = Grade 6 Xx?xxx = Grade 7 Xx8xxx = Grade 8 Xx1 xxx = Grade 9 Xx2xxx = Grade 1 0 Xx3xxx = Grade 11 Xx4xxx = Grade 12 Xx5xxx = Advanced Placement or University Credit Course at Hall High The sixth digit designates whether the course is taught one semester or full year. Odd numbers (1, 3, 5, 7, 9) = Semester courses Even numbers (0, 2, 4, 6, 8) = Full-year courses 34 Effective for 1998-99 freshmen, all students must complete one unit from art, music, dance, or drama to meet the graduation requirements in Fine Arts. Students choosing Fine Arts for a Career Focus must complete a minimum of three units beyond the Common Core requirement in art, dance, drama, or music. Students are also strongly encouraged to complete two units in one foreign language. Students who were freshmen prior to fall 1998 must complete one-half unit from the Fine Arts. '99-2000 Abbrev. Description Grades Prerequisites Credit Course Title No. 021000 INTRO TO ART Introduction to Art 9 None 1 022000 ART-DESIGN Art-Design 10-12 Introduction to Art 1 022002 GRPHC DSGN Graphic Design 10-12 Introduction to Art 1 022004 PAINTING Painting 10-12 Drawing I 1 022006 WATERCOLOR Watercolor 10-12 Introduction to Art 1 024000 CREAT ART Creative Art 12 Introduction to Art, Painting, and 1 Watercolor 022001 SURVEY ART Survey of Fine Arts 9-12 None  021008 DRAWING 1 Drawing I 9-12 None 1 022008 DRAWING2 Drawing II 10-12 Drawing I 1 025000 STUDIO ART AP Studio Art AP 11-12 Painting or Drawing II and 1 Teacher Recommendation 025002 ART HIST AP Art History AP 11-12 English II Pre-AP 1 Introduction to Art Students in Introduction to Art will expand on their previous experience with the elements of art and principles of design. Original compositions and expanded media will be emphasized. This course examines the elements of design with students creating individual designs utilizing the principles of graphic art, color, and texture. Design concepts are applied to projects in photography, crafts, ceramics, and sculpture. Art appreciation and a study of career opportunities are integrated into the course. Grade: 9 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Art- Design Art-Design is designed for students with previous art training and provides in-depth study of the principles of design. Students will be introduced to critical analysis and art appreciation. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Graphic Design Introduction to Art 1 This course introduces advertising layout with units of study in illustration, lettering, and printmaking. Practical applications of commercial art and careers are explored. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Introduction to Art Credit: 1 35 Painting Painting is a course designed to provide basic instruction and opportunities to experiment with different mediums, subjects, and techniques. Units of art appreciation and history are included. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Watercolor Drawing I 1 This course is an introduction to watercolor techniques and an exploration of mediums. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Creative Art Introduction to Art 1 This individualized and advanced art course is designed to encourage a student to pursue his/her particular painting interest. Watercolor is basic to this course in addition to the following: oil, acrylic, tempera paints, pencils, crayons, markers, inks, woods, glue, plaster, and canvas available. Individual study and portfolio preparation is an integral part of the course. Grade: 12 Prerequisite: Credit: Introduction to Art, Painting, and Watercolor 1 Survey of Fine Arts: Art This course provides an opportunity for students, not enrolled in art performance courses, to fulfill the fine arts graduation requirement. The content is structured to illustrate the interrelationship of parallel arts forms (music, visual arts, dance, and drama). Grade: 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1/2 Drawing I This course is an introduction to basic drawing units of study in the following areas: line, composition, forms, tonal scale, texture, color theory, enlargement, perspective, pen and ink, portraits, and lettering. Grade: 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Drawing II This course is structured as an in-depth study of visual perception. Skills development include proportion, perspective, and shading of the human face, features and body. The student is required to exhibit selected works. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Studio Art AP Drawing I 1 Advanced Placement Studio Art is intended for the highly motivated student interested in the serious study of art. Assignments are individually arranged with the instructor and based on portfolio needs\nleading to the compiling of a portfolio to submit for the AP College Board. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Painting or Drawing II and Teacher Recommendation 1 36 Art History AP Advanced Placement Art History is an introductory survey of the history of visual art from pre-historic to modern art. The purpose of this course is to provide the student with a foundation in art appreciation. Art History AP provides a broad overview of the history of art, beginning with Prehistoric art and ending with art of the Modern Era. This course is intended to provide a familiarity with the d~velopment of art, its major movements and figures, and its relationship to the historical period in which it was created. The curriculum is designed to develop skills and mastery of content needed for success on the AP examination. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: English II Pre-AP for non-art students\nA or 8 average in Art History for visual art students 1 37 Art-Parkview Magnet Parkview Arts Magnet students must complete eight units in one of the following speciality areas: dance, drama, art, or music. Students are also strongly encouraged to complete at least two units in one foreign language. '99-2000 Abbrev. Description Grades Prerequisites Credit Course Title No. 022003 POTTERY A Pottery A 10-12 Drawing I\nParkview only  023003 POTTERY B Pottery B 10-12 Pottery A\nParkview only  022010 POTTERY Pottery 10-12 Drawing I\nParkview only 1 022012 JEWELRY Jewelry 10-12 Drawing I and teacher 1 recommendation\nParkview only 024008 DRAWING 3 Drawing Ill 11-12 Drawing II\nParkview only 1 023002 OILS Oils 11-12 Painting\nParkview only 1 022014 CRAFTS FIBER Crafts-Fiber 10-12 Drawing I\nParkview only 1 023004 3-0 DESIGN Three-Dimensional 11-12 Pottery I\nParkview only 1 Design 022005 PRINTMAKING Printmaking 10-12 Drawing I\nParkview only  021010 ART HIST Art History 9-12 None\nParkview only 1 Pottery A (Parkview Magnet only) Students will study clay, glazes, and kiln. Handbuilding methods will include pinch, slab, and coil construction. Study will include kiln stacking and wheel throwing techniques. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Drawing I Credit: 1/2 Pottery B (Parkview Magnet only) Students will learn more advanced pottery skills emphasizing wheel techniques, kiln operation and decoration techniques. Pottery I and II are combined courses with both beginning and advanced students. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Pottery A 1/2 Jewelry (Parkview Magnet only) This course includes jewelry construction fundamentals, design composition, sawing, scrolling, piercing, soldering, bezel setting, and buffing. Different forms of jewelry, metals, and stones will be studied. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drawing I and Teacher Recommendation 1 Drawing Ill (Parkview Magnet only) This course is structured for advanced students to work independently on drawing techniques. The student is required to give written critiques of their work and exhibit selected works. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drawing II 1 38 Oils (Parkview Magnet only) This course is designed for students who have had experience with basic painting techniques and wish to work with oils. Emphasis is on developing a personal style. Composition and color problems will be examined. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Painting 1 Crafts - Fibers (Parkview Magnet only) This course is designed for students interested in the study of fibers and the variety of crafts which incorporate these materials and will include fabric design, fabric embellishment, spinning, weaving, and silk painting. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drawing I 1 Three-Dimensional Design (Parkview Magnet only) This course is designed for advanced students interested in continuing the study of sculptural and three-dimensional design. The course will include a variety of sculptural and design techniques. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Pottery I Credit: 1 Printmaking (Parkview Magnet only) Printmaking is a course which offers studies in various methods of reproducing original art work. Screen process printing, relief printing, etching, and lithography techniques will be covered. Vocabulary and history will be taught along with printing procedures and the proper use of materials. The student will also be expected to master the ability to create appropriate designs and proper exhibition techniques. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisites: Credit: Drawing I  Art History (Parkview Magnet only) Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 39 Business Education Note: All completers of a Workforce Education career focus/major must complete the Foundation Core courses consisting of:  Career Orientation (required in grade 7)  Keyboarding (required in grade 6 or 7, effective fall 1999)  Computer Technology: Introduction or Word Processing A or Computerized Business Applications Effective for 1998-99 freshmen, all students must complete at least one unit in Technology Applications in order to meet graduation requirements. This requirement may be satisfied through completion of one unit from the following:  Keyboarding Applications (1/2)  Word Processing A (1/2)  Word Processing B (1/2)  Database Management (1/2)  Desktop Publishing A (1 /2)  Desktop Publishing B (1 /2)  Programming A (1/2)  Programming B (1/2)  Computerized Business Applications (1)  Computerized Accounting (1) Students who are interested in completing the Recommended Common Core and Career Focus must complete one additional unit from the list of Technology Applications courses. Students who choose Administrative Services as a Career Focus must complete a minimum of three units from the following courses:  Word Processing A and B (1)  Office Management or Cooperative Office Education (1) And one from the following:  Computerized Accounting I or II ( 1)  Computerized Business Applications (1)  Desktop Publishing A and B (1)  Multimedia Applications (1/2)  Rapid Writing A and B (1)  Workplace Readiness (1/2) Students who choose Business Management as a Career Focus must complete a minimum of three units from the following courses:  Computerized Accounting I or II (1 )*  Management (1) And one from the following:  Business Law (1)  Computerized Business Applications (1)  Multimedia Applications (1/2)  Word Processing A and B (1)  Workplace Readiness (1/2) *The student must take Computerized Accounting II to satisfy this requirement if Computerized Accounting I was selected to fulfill the technology applications requirement. 40 Students who choose Finance as a Career Focus must complete a minimum of three units from the following courses:  Banking and Finance Marketing (1/2)  Banking and Finance Principles (1/2)  Banking and Finance Operations (1/2)  Banking and Finance Law (1/2)  Computerized Accounting I (1) Or three units to include Computerized Accounting 1-11 and one unit from the following:  Computerized Business Applications (1)  Database Management (1/2)  Spreadsheet Applications (1 /2)  Word Processing A (1/2)  Word Processing B (1/2)  Workplace Readiness (1/2) McClellan High School magnet students who choose Business Prinicples and Management must complete a minimum of five and one-half units from the following:  Computerized Business Applications (1) Or two of the following:  Word Processing A (1/2)  Desktop Publishing (1/2)  Database Management (1/2)  Spreadsheet Applications (1 /2) And:  Computerized Accounting I (1)  Junior Executive Training (1)  2  units of school-approved electives McClellan High School magnet students who choose Economics and Finance as a Career Focus must complete a minimum of five and one-half units from the following :  Computerized Business Applications (1) or Two of the following:  Word Processing A (1/2)  Desktop Publishing (1/2)  Database Management (1/2)  Spreadsheet Applications (1/2) And:  Economics (1) or Banking and Finance Principles (1/2) and Banking and Finance Operations (1/2) and  Junior Executive Training (1) and  2  units of school-approved electives 41 Business Education '99-2000 Abbrev. Description Grades Prerequisites Credit Course Title No. 031001 KEYBOARDING Keyboarding 9-12 None  031003 KEYBDAPPLS Keyboarding 9-12 Keyboarding  Applications 031004  KEYBD/APPL Keyboarding and 9-12 None 1 Keyboarding Applications (full year) 031019 COMPTECH INT Computer 9-12 Keyboarding  Technology: Introduction 031005 WORD PROCA Word Processing A 9-12 Keyboarding  032005 WORD PROCB Word Processing B 10-12 Word Processing A  032002 WORD PROA/B Word Processing I 10-12 Keyboarding 1 032004 COMP ACCT 1 Computerized 10-12 Overall \"C\" average\n1 Accounting I Keyboarding 033004 COMPACCT2 Computerized 11-12 Computerized Accounting I 1 Accounting II 032007 DATABASE MGT Database 10-12 Keyboarding  Management 032009 SPREADSHEETS Spreadsheet 10-12 Keyboarding  Applications 033002 OFFICE MGT Office Management 11-12 Word Processing B 1 032011 RAPIDWRTGA Rapid Writing A 10-12 Keyboarding  032013 RAPIDWRTG B Rapid Writing B 10-12 Rapid Writing A  033016 BUSINESS LAW Business Law 11-12 Foundation Core 1 033006 JR EXECTRNG Junior Executive 11-12 Computerized Accounting I 1 Training 033008 COE--RELATED Cooperative Office 11-12 Keyboarding\nplus one 1 Education-- Related additional unit in Bus. Ed. 033010 COE--RELATED Cooperative Office 11-12 Keyboarding\nplus one 1 Education-Related additional unit in Bus. Ed. (Early Bird) 033012 COE-COOP OJT Cooperative Office Concurrent enrollment in Coop. 1 Education -OJT Education--Related 031015 PROGAMMING A Programming A 9-12 Keyboarding  032015 PROGRAMMING B Programming B 10-12 Keyboarding and Programming  A 032006 COMP BUS APPL Computerized 10-12 Keyboarding, Word Processing 1 Business A and Word Processing B Applications 031017 DESKTOP PUB A Desktop Publishing 10-12 Keyboarding and Word  A Processing A 032017 DESKTOP PUB B Desktop Publishing 10-12 Keyboarding and Desktop  B Publishing A 033001 MULTIMEDIA Multimedia 11-12 Word Processing A and B  Applications in Business 033003 BANK/FIN PRIN Banking and 11-12 Computerized Accounting I  Finance Principles (Suggested) 033005 BANK/FIN OPR Banking and 11-12 Banking and Finance Principles  Finance Operations 033007 BANK/FIN MKG Banking and 11-12 Banking and Finance Principles  Finance Marketing 033009 BANK/FIN LAW Banking and 11-12 Banking and Finance Principles  Finance Law 42 Keyboarding Keyboarding is a one-semester course designed to help students develop speed and accuracy by learning the touch operation of alphanumeric/keyboard characters. Emphasis is placed on the following: mastery of the keyboard with desirable keyboarding techniques\ndevelopment of speed and accuracy\nbasic problem-solving applications of centering and arranging reports, letters, and tables\nproofreading\nformatting\nand proper care of the equipment. Keyboarding is the foundation for developing entry-level skills for business and other careers where computers are used. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit:  Keyboarding Applications Keyboarding Applications is a one-semester course designed to further develop keyboarding skills. Emphasis is placed on the following: speed and accuracy\nproofreading\nproducing mailable copy from rough draft\nhandwritten and statistical documents\nand improving production of various types of business communications. Keyboarding Applications provides the skills and knowledge necessary for entry-level employment for business careers. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding  Keyboarding and Keyboarding Applications This one-year course is a combination of the two one-semester courses listed above. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Computer Technology: Introduction Computer Technology: Introduction is a one-semester course designed to prepare students with an introduction to computers and business applications which are necessary to live and work in a technological society. Emphasis is given to data entry, computer concepts and operations, programming and design, computer software, implications of technology in society, and ethics. The course is designed to provide students with an understanding of the business, industrial and scientific area in which the computer is used. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding 1/2 Word Processing A Word Processing A is a one-semester course designed to provide students with entry-level skills in word-processing concepts, operations, text manipulations, and production of business documents using an intermediate or advanced-level software program. In addition, training in basic word vocabulary skills\nmechanics of punctuation and grammar\nformat and style\nand proofreading, editing, and reviewing business documents are included in the course. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding  Word Processing B Word Processing B is a one-semester course designed to provide students with competencies in word-processing concepts. Emphasis is on production of business documents and applications, including formats, creating and maintaining files, repetitive documents, revising, and printing. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Word Processing A  43 Computerized Accounting I Computerized Accounting I is a full-year course with emphasis on basic accounting principles as they relate to both manual and computerized systems. Instruction is on an integrated basis using computers and electronic calculators as the relationships and processes of manual and computerized accounting are presented. A knowledge of programming is not necessary for enrollment. Entry-level skills in the .accounting occupations can be attained. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Overall \"C\" average and Keyboarding 1 Computerized Accounting II Computerized Accounting II is a full-year course designed to provide students with the knowledge, understanding, and skill necessary for successful careers in accounting. Partnership as well as departmental, corporate, and cost-accounting systems are components of the course. Emphasis is given to the computerized/automated functions in accounting. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Computerized Accounting I Credit: 1 Database Management Database Management is a one-semester course where students learn to organize data\ncreate, search, and query databases\nand use integrated software to combine databases with wordprocessing and main merge. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Keyboarding Credit:  Spreadsheet Applications Spreadsheet Applications is a one-semester course in which students use computer programs to analyze quantitative data. Emphasis is placed on the role and value of spreadsheets, financial reporting, budgeting, planning, and forecasting. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding  Office Management Office Management is a full-year course focusing on management and supervision in the office environment. The course covers basic skills such as word processing, records management, and communications, as well as decision-making, critical thinking, teamwork, and ethics. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Rapid Writing A Word Processing B 1 Rapid Writing A is a one-semester course in any alphabetic writing or symbolic shorthand system designed to make note-taking easier, faster, and efficient. Emphasis is placed on theory, speed, reinforcement, transcription skills, spelling, punctuation, and vocabulary. The course is designed for any student wishing to make notes for educational, business, and personal use. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding  44 Rapid Writing B Rapid Writing B is designed for the student who wishes to become more proficient in the use of the art of note-taking. It is a continuation of Rapid Writing A and emphasizes speed, transcription, skills, effective listening skills, spelling, vocabulary, mechanics of grammar, and note-taking applications. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Business Law Rapid Writing A  Business Law is a two-semester course designed to acquaint the student with some of the legal problems and rights encountered in business transactions. This course will include law and the judicial systems\nlaws relating to minors, consumers, and the business firm\nelements of contracts, credit\nsales contracts\nemployment laws\ncommercial paper\ninsurance and property rights. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Foundation Core Credit: 1 Junior Executive Training Junior Executive Training (JET) is a two-semester course designed to focus on small business ownership and management. Units of instruction include business and its environment, social and economic implications of business, business decision-making, business planning, legal aspects of business ownership, legal issues of small businesses, obtaining initial capital and credit, protecting assets, management functions, controlling, personnel management, business taxes and government regulations, and community relations. The student will be introduced to the use of microcomputer software as a tool for business decision-making and business communications. Software will include database management, spreadsheet applications, and word processing. The Business Executive Game, with emphasis on managerial decision-making, is an integral part of the course. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Computerized Accounting I Credit: 1 Cooperative Office Education--Related Cooperative Office Education (COE) is a two-semester course designed for junior and senior business students. This course is a supervised learning experience where advanced business education students attend school on half-day and work in a business office a minimum of 270 hours per semester. A related class is required as part of the one-half day of school work. One unit of credit is given for the related class and one or two credits for on-the-job training. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding, plus one additional credit in Business Education 1 Cooperative Office Education-OJT Students who have completed advanced training in related business education classes will be employed and compensated in an approved training station related to their learning experiences, skills, and career focus. A minimum of 270 clock hours of on-the-job training per semester is required. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Concurrent enrollment in Cooperative Office Education-Related 1 45 Programming A Programming A is a one-semester course with emphasis on programming business and general applications. Students learn planning and coding techniques through the use of practical applications. Design and use of structure as well as decision-making in programs are integrated throughout the course. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Programming B Keyboarding  Programming B is a one-semester course designed to teach the basic language in a structured fashion using programming concepts and techniques for practical business applications. A strong emphasis is placed on developing a level of skill with which production programs for business use may be planned and coded. The course is designed to provide students with the necessary skills to document, code, enter, and execute a well-designed basic program, and the student will be able to recognize a well-designed and well-written program. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding and Programming A  Computerized Business Applications Computerized Business Applications is a two-semester course designed to prepare students with an introduction to business applications which are necessary to live and work in a technological society. Emphasis is given to hardware, concepts, and business uses of applications. The business applications covered are word processing, database, spreadsheet, graphics, integrated software, electronic mail, management-support software, and image processing. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding, Word Processing A and Word Processing B 1 Desktop Publishing A Desktop Publishing A is a one-semester course that combines the versatility of the microcomputer with page design software enabling students to produce materials of near photo-typed quality. This course includes page composition , layout, design, editing functions, and a variety of printing options. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding and Word Processing A  Desktop Publishing B Desktop Publishing B is a one-semester course designed to study the process of analyzing information and audience and choosing the appropriate visual signals to communicate the desired message effectively. Applied principles are used to analyze and organize information, set up a design structure, and produce special visual expressions. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Keyboarding and Desktop Publishing A  Multimedia Applications in Business Students will use multimedia to merge text, graphics, video, and sound. Applied principles are used to analyze and organize information, set up design structures, and produce special visual expressions. State-developed curriculum materials and multimedia software applications will be used. Grades: Prerequisite: Credit: 11-12 Word Processing A and B 1/2 46 Banking and Finance Principles Banking and Finance Principles is a one-semester course that assists the students in understanding the American banking system. Students study the Federal Reserve System, banking and the economy, functions of depository institutions, and daily transactions of depository institutions. This curriculum is adapted from Wisconsin Finance Youth Apprenticeship, Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations, Bureau of Apprenticeship Standards, Office for Workforce Excellence. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Computerized Accounting I (Suggested)  Banking and Finance Operations Banking and Finance Operations is a one-semester course that assists the student in understanding the United States payment system and daily operations of depository institutions. Students study regulatory framework, the U.S. Payment system, the check collection system, money creation, internal controls, financial statements, and risks . This curriculum is adapted from Wisconsin Finance Youth Apprenticeship, Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations, Bureau of Apprenticeship Standards, Office of Workforce Excellence. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Banking and Finance Principles  Banking and Finance Marketing Banking and Finance Marketing is a one-semester course that focuses on marketing in the banking industry. Emphasis is placed on customer satisfaction and service quality, implementation of marketing plans, and the future of bank marketing. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Banking and Finance Principles Credit:  Banking and Finance Law Banking and Finance Law is a one-semester course that assists the student in understanding the legal environment in which depository institutions exist. Students study basic concepts in business law in the areas of contract law, agency law, property law, commercial paper law, and credit law. This curriculum is adapted from Wisconsin Finance Youth Apprenticeship, Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations, Bureau of Apprenticeship Standards, Office for Workforce Excellence. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Banking and Finance Principles  47 ~ I Business Education-McClellan High Business Education-McClellan High only Business 033014 ECONOMICS Economics 11-12 None\nMcClellan High only 034002 BUS FINANCE Business Finance 12 Economics\nMcClellan High only 033011 INTRN BUS International 11-12 Foundation Core\nMcClellan  Business High only 032023 ENTREPRNSHP Entrepreneurship 10-12 Foundation Core\nMcClellan  High only Business Etiquette/Leadership (McClellan High only) Business Etiquette/Leadership is a one-semester course which teaches students how to refine their manners for the world-of-work. Proper etiquette, personality development, proper speaking, and dress for success will be discussed. The course is designed to build self-esteem and to motivate students as potential leaders. The \"I Can\" program will be used. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: None Credit:  Introduction to Business (McClellan High only) A major purpose of Introduction to Business is to contribute to improved economic citizenship through a study of the business and economic environment in which we all live. Economic citizenship means the development of individuals who are knowledgeable and appreciative of the American business system and its integral role in our total economic society, are competent and efficient in managing their own personal business and financial affairs, and are wise and skillful in selecting and using the goods and services of business. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: None Credit:  Economics (McClellan High only\nsee also under Social Studies) Economics is a two-semester course designed to teach students about economic problems and situations of consumers, business, and government. The monetary system, employment, price level, business fluctuations, and international trade are also discussed. Grades: 11-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Business Finance (McClellan High only) Business Finance is a two-semester course which places emphasis on the modern corporation, methods of securing and managing assets, problems of bankruptcy, insurance, and investment in stocks and bonds. Grade: 12 Prerequisite: Credit: Economics 1 48 International Business (McClellan High only) International Business and Banking is a one-semester course pursuing the study of economics, competition, politics, and social activities across national boundaries. Students are taught to think in global terms concerning their legal, cultural, economic, and political environments. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Foundation Core  Entrepreneurship (McClellan High only) Entrepreneurship is a one-semester course designed to offer an overview of the American business enterprise system. A study is made of various forms of ownership, internal organization, management functions, and financing as they relate to business. The course content focuses on the concepts and practices of small business ownership and management. The student should be introduced to microcomputer software that is used as a tool for management functions. It is recommended that Economics at Work, developed by the Agency for Instructional Technology, the National Council on Economic Education, and a consortium of state education agencies, be utilized in the second semester as a contextual, multimedia approach designed around five major economic activities, including producing, exchanging, consuming, saving, and investing. Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Foundation Core 1/2 49 Communications Effective for 1998-99 freshmen , students must complete Communication I to satisfy graduation requirements. Students who choose Humanities as a Career Focus may complete the minimum of three required units beyond the Common Core from Communications. McClellan High School magnet students who choose Oral Communication as a Career Focus must complete a minimum of five and one-half units from the following courses:  Communications I (1)  Dramal(1)  Mass Media A and 8 (1)  Public Speaking/Business Communications (1/2)  2 units of school-approved electives. Communications Communication I Hall High only\nUniversity course ESL Communication I Concurrent enrollment in ESL English\nHall High only 052100 COMMUNICA2 Communication II 10-12 Communication I 053100 COMMUNICA3 Communication Ill 11-12 Communication II 052102 DEBATE 1 Debate I 10-12 Communication I 053102 DEBATE 2 Debate II 11-12 Debate I 054102 DEBATE 3 Debate Ill 12 Debate II 052104 PUB SPKG Public Speaking 10-12 Communication I 052106 GRP DYNAMICS Interpersonal Skills 10-12 Communication 1 and Group Dynamics Communication I Communication I is designed to improve communication skills, especially organization of ideas, use of body and voice, articulation, fluency, and poise. The course consists of oral interpretation, group discussion, and parliamentary procedure. Grade: 9-10 Prerequisite: Credit: None 1 ESL Communication I (Hall High only\nsee also in English-as-a-Second Language) This course is offered to identified ESL students to strengthen their oral language proficiency and at the same time satisfy the one-year requirement of Communication I. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Identification for ESL 1 50 Communication II This course is designed for those students who wish to develop further their communication competencies, especially before audiences of various types and sizes. Students present five and ten minute speeches on issues of concern in fields of current social, political, and economic problems. Also included are one or two rounds of research discussion\nbilateral communication assignments beginning with direct-clash or two-person debates\nstandard four-person debates using comparative advantages case structure\njudicial debate using the format of a mock trial\na simple informative speech\nan informative speech on community resources and developments using visual aids to enhance clarity and effectiveness\nthe idea-scope which is developed out of an idea and then adapted to a given audience\nthe speech to convince\nthe speech to actuate\nthe speech to stimulate\nand a media presentation on the format of a 30-minute newscast using videotape for the unit. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Communication I 1 Communication Ill Designed for those students who reach their junior year with no training in improving communication competencies, this course is organized around an inter-personal approach to communication. Though emphasis is on effective verbal and non-verbal communication throughout the course, each individual unit has at least one additional point of focus: an analysis of student communication behaviors, informal group discussion, research group discussion, queries and comments in the form of a panel interview, informational and job interviews using resource people within the community, bilateral communication assignments in the form of two-person debates, various types of speeches to inform, effective use of visual aids to increase understanding of messages, speeches to change attitudes, legislative debating and the use of parliamentary procedure through the form of a student congress, and a study of the limitations and influences of media. Grade: 11 -12 Prerequisite Credit: Debate I Communication II 1 This course is designed to provide opportunities and experience for the students who desire to participate in intensive and extensive debate activities. After the students have learned the basic concepts and skills related to debate, they work independently and cooperatively with other students to master these concepts and skills through actual application in speech tournaments and the Arkansas Student Congress. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Debate II Communication I 1 This course is designed to provide opportunities and experience for the student who desires to participate in intensive and extensive debate activities. After the student has learned the basic concepts and skills related to debate, he/she works independently and cooperatively with other students to master these concepts and skills through actual application in speech tournaments and the Arkansas Student Congress. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Debate I 1 51 Debate Ill This course is designed to provide opportunities and experience for the student who desires to participate in intensive and extensive debate activities. After the student has learned the basic concepts and skills related to debate, he/she works independently and cooperatively with other students to master these concepts and skills through actual application in speech tournaments and the Arkansas Student Congress. Grade: 12 Prerequisite: Credit: Public Speaking Grades: Prerequisite: Credit: Debate II 1 10-12 Communication I 1 Interpersonal Skills and Group Dynamics Grades: 10-12 Prerequisite: Communication I Credit: 1 52 Dance-Parkview Magnet Parkview Arts Magnet students must complete eight units in one of the following speciality areas: dance, drama, art, or music. Studen_ts are also strongly encouraged to complete two units in one foreign language. Parkview only Dance Techniques I\nParkview only 123000 DANCE TECH 3 Dance Techniques Ill 11-12 Dance Techniques II\nParkview only 124000 DANCE TECH 4 Dance Techniques IV 12 Dance Techniques Ill\nParkview only 123004 DANCE ENSBLE Dance Ensemble 10-12 Parkview only 122004 HIST DANCE History of Dance 10-12 Parkview only 121004 MEN'S DANCE Young Men's Dance 9-12 Parkview only Dance Techniques I (Parkview Magnet only) This is a beginning course of techniques in ballet, modern dance, and jazz. Grade: 9-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Permission of Instructor 1 Dance Techniques II (Parkview Magnet only) This intermediate level course establishes skill development in ballet, modern dance, jazz and provides for solo and ensemble performance. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Dance Techniques I or Permission of Instructor 1 Dance Techniques Ill (Parkview Magnet only) This advanced level course of ballet, modern dance and jazz is designed for mature skills development leading to independent choreography and solo and ensemble performance. Grade: 11 -12 Prerequisite: Credit: Dance Techniques II or Permission of Instructor 1 Dance Techniques IV (Parkview Magnet only) This advanced level course of ballet, modern dance and jazz is designed for mature skills developmentleading to independent choreography and solo and ensemble performance. Grade: 12 Prerequisite: Credit: Dance Techniques Ill or Permission of Instructor 1 Dance Ensemble (Parkview Magnet only) Performance group for advanced dance students. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Dance Techniques I or Comparable Course and Audition 1 53 History of Dance (Parkview Magnet only) Presents history and the development of dance as an art form . Course required for students who choose the study of dance as an arts area of concentration. Grade: 10-11 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Young Men's Dance (Parkview Magnet only) Students in this class will study the intermediate techniques of classical ballet with intermediate barre, adagio, allegro combinations and pirouettes, and development of a working knowledge of ballet terminology. The goal of the class is to enhance the student's skills and appreciation of dance as a theater art. A central emphasis of the course is the development of movement skills requ ired of male dancers as performing artists. This training entails regular practice in ballet and jazz techniques, based respectively on the trad itional, ballet syllabus, kinesiological principles, and selected popular and theatrical dance idioms. This course will cultivate an appreciation of dance aesthetics through viewing live, taped, and filed dance performances as well as through the study of other art forms. Students will have regular opportunities to develop performance skills in classroom and \"brown bag\" presentations. Proper dance attire is required. Grades: 9-12 Prerequisite: Credit: 1-2 years of dance training 1 54 Drama Effective for freshmen 1998-99, all students must complete one unit from art, music, drama, or dance to satisfy the graduation requirement for Fine Arts. Students who choose Fine Arts as a Career Focus must complete a minimum of three units beyond the Common Core in either art, music, dance, or drama. Students are also strongly encouraged to complete a minimum of two units of one foreign language. Drama '99-2000 Abbrev. Description Grades Prerequisites Credit Course Title No. 051200 DRAMA 1 Drama I 9-12 None 1 051202 DRAMA 1 IS Drama I International 9-12 None 1 Studies Central High only. 052200 DRAMA2 Drama II 10-12 Drama I 1 053200 DRAMA3 Drama Ill 11-12 Drama II 1 052202 STAGE CRAFT Stage Craft 10-12 None 1 052204 INTERPCOMM Interpretative 10-12 Communication I 1 Communication Drama I This course is designed for those students who are interested in further study in the field of dramatic art. Building on basic speech skills, the drama course is structured to channel these skills into dramatic presentations. This is done through classroom activities of pantomime, dramatic reading, readers theatre, and solo/duet acting. These activities are integrated with the study of the history of drama from the ancient Greek civilization to modern society. The drama course also serves as the working class for dramatic productions presented each year. Involvement in a play teaches stage production techniques, such as lighting, set design, makeup, costuming, publicity, etc., as well as allowing those students who are interested in the performing aspects to exhibit their dramatic talents before a live audience. Grade: 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Drama I International Studies (Central High only) Grade: 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Drama II This course is designed to continue skills development begun in Drama I. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drama Ill Drama I or Permission of Instructor 1 This course is an in-depth study in acting, directing, and theatre production. Grade: 11-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drama II 1 55 Stagecraft This course is designed to acquaint the students with all aspects of the technical theatre: set design, management, construction, setting the stage, operating the equipment, and safety. Units include Introduction to the Theater, History of the Stage, The Stage Area, The Operation of Equipment, The Stage Scenery, Stage Management, and Production. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Interpretative Communication The major objectives of this course are to teach the student to interpret the materials of others to an audience, expressing the intellectual, emotional, and aesthetic entirety of the literature. The course includes the study of individual interpretation of poetry, prose, and dramatic literature through reading and acting\nthe communication of ideas through the study of pantomime and mime\nthe presentation of dramatic literature through exercises of solo-acting, duet-acting, and readers theatre productions\nand the study of group interpretive presentations focusing on the communication process, the performer as a communicator, responsive listening, and the selection and adaptation of materials for interpretation. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Communication I 1 56 Drama-Parkview Magnet Parkview Arts Magnet students must complete eight units in one of the following areas: dance, drama, art, or music. Students are also strongly encouraged to complete a minimum of two units of one foreign language. Drama-Parkview Magnet 052206 MIME Mime 10-12 Drama I and teacher permission\nParkview only 052208 CLASSIC STOY Classic Scene Study 10-12 Drama I\nParkview only 052210 ACTING Acting 10-12 Drama I\nParkview only 052212 CHILDTHTR Children's Theater 10-12 Drama I\nParkview only 052214 THTR HISTORY Theater History 10-12 None\nParkview only Mime (Parkview Magnet only) This course will explore fundamental techniques of concentration, relaxation, transformation, and isolation. Communication without words through body movement and expression will be studied. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drama I and permission of instructor 1 Classic Scene Study (Parkview Magnet only) Classic Scene Study will emphasize form, language, meter, and meaning in scenes from Greek, Roman, Shakespearean, and Restoration playwrights and their works. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drama I 1 Acting (Parkview Magnet only) This course is designed for intensive study in acting techniques, character development, and movement. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drama I 1 Children's Theatre (Parkview Magnet only) Children's Theatre is a course designed for study of presentations to young audiencescharacterization, movement, and costuming. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: Credit: Drama I 1 History of the Theatre (Parkview Magnet only) This course is designed to focus on the progression of dramatic performance from pre-historic man to contemporary society. This activity-centered course includes types of dramatic literature, styles of performance, and techniques of staging. Grade: 10-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 57 English Note: Schools may, but are not required to, provide Language Arts Plus I, II, Ill, IV. Effective fall 1998-99, students must complete at least four units of English to satisfy graduation requirements. Students who choose the Humanities as a Career Focus must complete at least three units beyond the Common Core as follows: English '99-2000 Course No. 051000 052000 053000 054000 051002 051004 052002 052004 053002 053004 055004 055006 054002 054004 055008 055014 055010 054006 055012 054008 053001 053006  Three units in one foreign language\nor  Two units of one foreign language and one unit beyond the Common Core from English or Social Studies\nor  Three units beyond the Common Core in communications, English, and/or journalism\nor  Three units beyond the Common Core in social studies. Abbrev. Description Grades Prerequisites Credit Title LANG ARTS 1+ Language Arts Plus I 9-12 None 1 LANGARTS2+ Language Arts Plus II 10-12 None 1 LANG ARTS 3+ Language Arts Plus Ill 11-12 None 1 LANGARTS4+ Language Arts Plus IV 12 None 1 ENG 1 English I 9-12 None 1 ENG 1 PRE-AP English I Pre-AP 9-12 Teacher 1 recommendation ENG 2 English II 10-12 English I 1 ENG 2 PRE-AP English II Pre-AP 10-12 English I or I Pre-AP\n1 teacher recommendation ENG 3 English Ill 11-12 English II 1 ENG 3 PRE-AP English Ill Pre-AP 11-12 English II or II Pre-AP\n1 teacher recommendation ENG 3AP English Ill AP 11-12 English II or II Pre-AP\n1 teacher recommendation ENG 3 APU English Ill APU 11-12 English II or II Pre-AP\n1 teacher recommendation\nHall High only ENG4 English IV 12 English Ill 1 ENG4 English IV (Early Bird) 12 English Ill 1 ENG4AP English IV AP 12 English 111 or Ill Pre-AP 1 ENG 4APU English IV APU 12 English Ill or Ill Pre-AP 1 or 111 AP\nHall High only\nUniversity course ENG4AP English IV AP (Early Bird) 12 English Ill or Ill Pre-AP 1 ENG 4 IS English IV International 12 English Ill 1 Studies ENG4 ISAP English IV International 12 English Ill or Ill Pre-AP 1 Studies AP CRT WRTG/MAG Creative Writing and 12 Parkview: Grade of \"B\" 1 Magazine Production in regular English Ill or \"C\" in English Ill Pre- AP\nOther schools: Eng. Ill TECH WRTG Technical Writing 11-12 English II or II Pre-AP 1/2 RESEARCH Research for the 21\" Century 11-12 English 11 or II Pre-AP 1 58 053008 MUL TICUL LIT Multicultural Literature 11-12 English II or II Pre-AP 1 052001 BIBLE AS/IN LIT The Bible as/in Literature 10-12 English I or I Pre-AP\n1/2 Hall High only 052003 ACT PREP ENG ACT Preparation: English 10-12 English I 1/2 Language Arts Plus I Language Arts Plus is designed to assist English students who are performing below grade level according to multiple criteria. The course emphasis is on strengthening reading skills through an integrated teaching/learning approach that parallels the learning activities in the students' regular English classes. Students must be assigned to Language Arts Plus classes taught by their regular English teachers to ensure learning continuity. Grades 9-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Language Arts Plus II Language Arts Plus is designed to assist English students who are performing below grade level according to multiple criteria. The course emphasis is on strengthening reading skills through an integrated teaching/learning approach that parallels the learning activities in the students' regular English classes. Students must be assigned to Language Arts Plus classes taught by their regular English teachers to ensure learning continuity. Grades 10-12 Prerequisite: None Credit: 1 Language Arts Plus Ill Language Arts Plus is designed to assist English students who are performing below grade level according to multiple criteria. The course emphasis is on strengthening reading skills through an integrated teaching\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_525","title":"Literacy plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Literacy","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Literacy plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/525"],"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\nJune 2 9, 2 0 0 1 ! Literacy plan Literacy for LR pupils raises scores Reading assessment shows improvement BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE I Two years into a new literacy ' program. Little Rock School District officials said Thursday that student achievement appears to be improving as shown by results from a reading assessment given to pupils in kindergarten through second grades. I About three-fourths of last years kindergartners and second-graders and almost two- thirds of first-graders had the necessary skills and knowledge to succeed at the next grade level, according to the results from the Developmental Reading Assessment Im happy to report that the little children in our district are learning to read, Bonnie Lesley, associate superintendent for cim- riculum, told the School Board on Thursday. More than 80 percent of kindergartners scored at or above a satisfactory level this past spring, up 8.5 percentage points from spring 2000. Similarly, 75.4 percent of sec- ond-graders showed they are ready for the third grade, up from 67.5 percent in ^e preceding  Continued from Page 1B by each teacher in individual observation sessions with pupils, is one component of the districts literacy program. District officials revamped the literacy program in 1999 to better prepare ^1 pupils to read independently by the time they finish third grade. When the program was started, about 30 percent of children were reading at a proficient or better level. The state goal for reading proficiency at the end of fourth grade is 100 percent. The revised literacy program was designed to create more uniformity in the instruction given in the districts 36 elementary schools, A moratorium was placed on any new supplemental reading programs, and other programs were abandoned. Each school set aside a 2 172 hour daily block of time for language arts and reading. In addition, curriculum standards, teacher training, classroom instruction and student testing were more tightly aligned as a result of the new literacy program. Most primary-grade teachers went through at least one week of the states Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas training program, Lesley said. The district purchased more than $350,000 in readii^ supplies over two years, and Animated Literacy, a phonics awareness program, was expanded to all kindergartens and will be added to the first grades in coming years. Lesley said the reading results are preliminary. The true measure Little Rock School District Developmental Reading Assessment results Developmental Reading Assessment scores are reported as the percent of students by grade who scored at or above the readiness\" level. \"Readiness'is defined as the necessary knowledge and skills for success at the next grade level. SPRING SPRING 2000 2001 CHANGE of the reading skills will be when year. A total of 63.8 percent of I children who have gone through first-graders scored at the readi- ness level, up from 53.6 percent in spring 2000. \"file reading assessment, done See UTERACY, Page 4B the new program take the state- mandated Primary Benchmark Exam at the end of fourth grade. When last springs assessment scores are broken down by race, both black and white children showed gains, but the gains made by black pupils were greater, Lesley said. That means there was a reduction in the achievement disparity between black and white pupils. Kindergarten 72.2% 80.7% 8.5% Grade 2 67.5% 75.4% 7.9% SOURCE\nLittle Rock School District Arkansas Democrat-Gazette which is a long-standing goal of the district Black pupils averaged gains of 6 percentage points to 9 percentage points over results from 2000, while whites  who traditionally score higher on standardized exams  averaged gains of 4.1 percentage points to 6.1 percentage points. Stephens, McDermott, Badgett and Baseline elementaries were cited by Lesley and by School Board members for dramatic improvements. At some grades in some schools, results improved by more than 40 percentage points. In some schools, more than 90 percent of children scored at a proficient level The highest performing schools in kindergarten were McDermott, Baseline, Fulbright, Gibbs and Brady schools. The highest performing schools in first grade were Williams, Carver, McDermott, Booker and Forest Park. The highest performing schools in second grade were Carver, Williams, Western Hills, Otter Creek and McDermott 'The district has not prepared parent reports on their childrens assessment results. Lesley said parents can get the school and student results from their childs elementary school. THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003  LR literacy coach is teacher of year ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE hosted the Teacher of the Year Debbie Sabo, a literacy coach Recognition Banquet for five at Chicot Elementary School, was years. Staff at each of the dis- named Teacher of the Year for tricts SO schools nominate their the Little Rock School District at colleagues for school and dis- a Tuesday evening ceremony at trict awards. This year, 67 teach- Stephens Elementary School. ers were honored\none from each Sabo, who previously taught elementary school, two each kindergarten for 18 years, was from the middle schools and as presented with numerous gift many as certificates and prizes including schools, airline passes, a computer, print- er, tickets to an athletic event and an athletic club membership. The gifts were donated by companies doing business in Little Rock. The Little Rock district has four from the highKtCBBSa Little Rock School District June 2,1999 The main thing is to keep the main thing the main THING! Dear Colleagues: What a yeai! I hope all of you have the sense of accomplishment that I do! The positive opportunities for the school district continue to develop. We have had great individual and collective accomplishments, but the most exciting aspect of the year has been that the instructional indicators are pointing to very positive future results. A parent and a teacher asked me how that could be true. Hadnt I seen the newspaper story showing results of the 4* grade literacy and math exam? Yes, but when we looked at those we noticed the schools that were pilots of the ELLA program K-3 and math, all had strong gains. Staff development has not been universally accepted or appreciated, primarily because of the many failed promises of programs and quick fix elixirs of the past! But this time this very basic and focused approach appears to be just what the doctor ordered. Most educational reformers who have produced results over time have agreed it is a matter of focuSgetting everyone on the same page with a standard or basic program. All the efforts of parents, students and teachers, regardless of the specialty, are focused to produce progress on a limited set of goals. ELLA training and the focused math training will continue to produce results on basic reading and math achievement goals. And let us not forget district graduates really had no peers when it came to top student awards in a number of state and national academic categories. Student activities have been a very pleasant surprise. The numbers of students participating grew impressively, and I know this helped to produce an improved year in student behavior. Many of you remember when state winners were most often decided within the schools of Little Rock, and Im talking about a variety of co-curricular activities. The district again has asserted itself with impressive performances in music, art, drama speech, debate and athletics. With the implementation of the middle schools and neighborhood schools our students and programs will only become stronger. Without question, the academic reasoning for middle schools and 9-12 high schools will provide academic strength, and it will have a positive impact with increased student participation in career/technical programs and co-curricular activities. (continued) 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000A^eh'ti1 I t-ren LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 I I June 24. 1999 To\nBoard of Education From\nDr. Bonnie Lesley,, AAss!sociate Superintendent for Instruction Through\nSubject\nAttached Dr. Leslie V. Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan for the Board's information is a copy of the final draft of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The draft presented earlier to the Board of Education has been extensively reviewed over a three-month period. Every elementary principal and PreK-3 teacher received his or her own copy, and there have been multiple opportunities for all to provide input, including during the June 2-3-4 inservice. In addition, the plan has been reviewed by representatives of ODM, UALR, ADE, and other education colleagues, as well as by parent representatives. As a result of all this feedback, we confidently present thi'final draft/ Responses have been nearly unanimously supportive. They applaud a well-designed, coherent District plan that is clearly aligned with the Arkansas literacy curriculum framework. Smart Start, and Title I regulations and that includes professional development and program evaluation components. All are supportive of doing whatever it takes to improve student achievement. Early implementors of the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), the centerpiece of the K-2 design, and Effective Literacy, the program for grades 3-4, were Dodd Elementary and Gibbs Elementary. The results of the spring 1999 Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examination for these two schools are extremely encouraging and predict what we as a District can do if we implement well the components of our plan. In 1997-98 only 22 percent of Dodd grade 4 students scored at the Proficient or Advanced levels. This year, 1998-99, 35 percent scored at those levelsan improvement of 13 percentage points! Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan - Memo June 24, 1999 Page Two Gibbs posted even greater gains. In 1997-98 they had 28 percent scoring at the Proficient or Advanced levels. Their score jumped to 49 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 21 percentage points! The PreK-3 Literacy Plan also allows for the continuation of Success for All, provided that those schools are posting improved performance. Romine Elementary has been a leader in Success for All implementation. Their performance jumped from 13 percent at Proficient or Advanced levels in 1997-98 to 48 percent in 1998-99an improvement of a very impressive 35 percentage points! 1 Notable also is that Dodd decreased the percentage of students performing at the Below Basic level from 50 percent in 1997-98 to 30 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 20 percentage points. Gibbs reduced their percentage of Below Basic\" performers from 52 percent in 1997-98 to 22 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 30 percentage points. And Romine reduced the percentage of students at the Below Basic level from 58 percent in 1997-98 to 32 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 26 percentage points. f I I t These very dramatic gains are indicators of the soundness of the LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan design. To achieve these kinds of results at the District level will require our commitment, focus, and determination, as well as an alignment of our energy and resources behind the implementation. i This final draft includes only a few changes from the earlier one reviewed by the Board of Education in March. The following are most significant: Update of section on Involvement and Communication to include March, April, May, and June activities (p. 11)\nUpdate of section on Arkansas Criterion-Referenced Tests to include spring 1999 results (p. 12)\nAddition of paragraph on schools identified for school improvement for Title I (P. 13)\nAddition of suggested performance indicators under Plan Goals (p. 26)\nAddition of section on Technology in PreK-3 in response to questions regarding role of computer labs in current use (p. 37)\nAddition of section on Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4 to show its place in the overall plan (p. 40)\nAddition of section on Role of the Library/Media Center to clarify expectations and involvement (p. 42)\nAddition of more specific information on plans for ELLA training (p. 44)\nAddition of a paragraph clarifying need for waiver to implement Direct Instruction (p. 47). I f j tReview of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan - Memo June 24,1999 Page Three Remaining changes were those relating to format, editing, and clarifying the original language. Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is already in progress and will continue intensely throughout the summer in preparation for next fall. BAL/adgi ^n Individual Approach to a World of Yjiowledge RECSVEd August 28, 2001 AUG 3 J 20Q1 DKEGflEGAT(0NM0N(T0fl/N6 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Enclosed in this package are three draft copies of our PreK-2 Literacy Program Evaluation, which is scheduled to go to the Board of Education in October. ( At your convenience I would like to schedule a meeting with you, Gene Jones, and Melissa Guilden to discuss the report and to hear your feedback and suggestions. Thanks so much for assisting us with this work. Yours truly, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 ^4 7^ -J October 12, 2001 'iViS^ fb, A.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One National Plaza 124 W. Capital, Ste. 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 1 8 2901 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Ms. Marshall: You will find enclosed a copy of our program evaluation for K-2 literacy: Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The report is on the Boards October 25 agenda. As you will recall, Melissa Guilden participated on the design team for the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, so we hope that you will share this study with her so that she can see some of the fruits of her labor. Also, Gene Jones read drafts in 1999-2000 of the early literacy program evaluation, so he will probably be interested in this product as well. Although we know that two years is not nearly enough to draw summative conclusions about the effectiveness of our literacy program in the early grades, we are certainly pleased with these early, very positive results. With the careful review that we have conducted not only of the results of the eight different assessments, but also of our program strengths and weaknesses, we feel that we have more direction now for program improvement in 2001-2002. Please let me or Ms. Pat Price know if you have questions. Yours truly, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg Enclosure cc: Patricia Price Dr. Kenneth James 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 F John W. Walker, pa. Attorket AiLiW 112Z Bsoadway Rook, akkansas 72206 Tp.T.FtpgnNE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W, WALSER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL donna J. MeHENK? 6210 HaffiiaaoN Hoad LMTiE Sock, Tboke: (BOI) rra-was  Fax (SOl) 37^8 October 31,2002 Dr. T. Kenneth James SuperinteodJt of Schods Little Rock School Kstrict 810 West Markham little Rode. AR. 72201 Dear Dr. James: I am renewing my request for the infcnnation in my letter dated October 29, ^02. If I ation that the District has not utilized any understand your response correctly, it is your po^on that the (during each of the past three ye^) \u0026lt; \" documents in existence wherry the Kstnct has co^ad and paid for such. your po^on, it seems contrary to your nqxjits to the Court. are no services. Ifthis is if you are not aware who has this information. of such documents, please forward my request to the proper person iiacerety, Joy C. Springer' JCS/ cc: Ms. Ann MarshallLittle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 1,2002 Ms. Joy Springer Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Ms. Springer: In response to your most recent request, you did not understand our response. It is not our position that we have not utilized consultants. Hovi/ever, our response remains the same. We do not have a document or documents to provide in response to your FOIA request, and we are not required to compile information or create a record in response to a FOIA request. Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools TKJ/bjg cc\nChris Heller Clay Fendley Ann Marshall 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 0 : John W. Walker, PA. Attorney AT Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 I I JOHN W. WALkEB SHaWK CH-IlDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, PA DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HknuEBSON Road LmLe Rxxac, ASKANB-vs 72210 Prone: (SOI) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 T.X(An.-. mehc2ii7d^ewbeU.nt I Dr. T. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Facsimile  447-1159 November 4,2002 I I I I I Dear Dr. James\nlet me know the names, addresses and telephone of all persons (from January 1, 1998 throng October 31,2002) that the District has consulted with respect to literacy training (in-service and staff devdopment). Also please let me have copies of their contracts and the pay invoices that they have submitted along evidence of payment to them. Sincerely, JCS/ cc\nMr. John W, Walker Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. ClayFendley Mr. Chris Heller I I e- JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 PAX (501) 3744187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 November 6, 2002 OP COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 PHONE\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (SOI) 372-3426 Email: mehcaiyd^vbclLnet Mr. ClayFendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Redons Center 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED NOV -6 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I . XOM Dear Clay: I am in receipt of your letter dated November 5,2002. My request for information relates directly to the LRSDs proposed compliance plan, item 4\nPrepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2,7. It is my understanding that literacy programs are being utilized to improve African American academic achievement and that the District commits to evaluating these programs I would like to have a better understanding of the literacy programs being implemented including who provided the training, amount paid by the District and the substance of the training provided. I also intend to inquire regarding the other programs identified in  2.7 in the future. Thank you for your attention to this request. mcerely, Joy C. Spring! JCS/ cc: Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Ken James Ms. Ann MarshallI received JAN 1 3 2004 CREP OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Center for Research in Educational Policy \u0026gt; Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation Steven M, Ross John Nunnery Lana Smith Aaron McDonald Allan Sterbinsky Center tor Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis 325 Browning Hail Memphis, TN 38152 Toll Free\n1-866-670-6147 November 2003Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL HI. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.ffidayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE \u0026lt;79-685-2011 FAX 479-685-2147 FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR.. P.A. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS. P.A. JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON KRISTEN S. ROWLANDS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON STEVEN L. BROOKS H. WAYNE YOUNG. JR. JAMIE HUFFMAN JONES KIMBERLY A. DICKERSON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2896 FAX 870.762-2918 CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1506 PAX 501-244-S344 hllrOfc.nt January 12, 2004 ONtHOllNO W N0li33a3aS3a dOlOHdO Mr. John Walker *1002 s I Nvr JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 aaABoaa Re: Little Rock School District Dear John: Two recent evaluations which were done in compliance with Judge Wilsons Order are enclosed. They are: Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation, November 2003 and An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to December 2003. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns about these evaluations. Yours very truly, CJH/bk ist6pher Heller cc w/enc.: Ms. Ann Marshal Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Morris Holmes* Position Paper PreK-3 Literacy Program-Draft Little Rock School District Division of Instruction March 1999 In short, literacy is key to success in school and beyond, for effective participation in the workforce, the community, and the body politic. This was true in the past- ven more true in the future, (p. 1, Building a Knowledge Base in Reading. NREL, 1998) ( t- Table of Contents Introduction 1 Background The Strategic Plan The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The Campus Leadership Plan The Arkansas Smart Start Initiative Title I Other Special Populations Summary 1 1 2 4 4 5 5 6 Methodology Core Committee Members 6 8 Involvement and Communication 8 Needs Assessment Data Analysis (Effectiveness) Implications for Social Promotion Alignment and Coherence (Efficiency) Professional Community Support for Students Conclusions 8 8 10 11 16 16 17 Review of Research 17 Plan Goals 20 PreK-3 Literacy Program Design Organizational Changes HIPPY Title I Lower Student-to-Adult Ratios Minimized/Eliminated Pullouts No New Programs Program Abandonment Flexible Schedules for Some Teachers Waiver Application Requirements Curriculum and Instruction Alignment Daily Schedule Limited-English Proficient Students Special Education and 504 Students Gifted/Talented Students 21 22 22 22 23 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 27 27 28Frequent Assessment and Regrouping Phonemic Awareness Early Literacy Learning (ELLA) Thematic Instruction The Social Nature of Learning Role of the Library/Media Center Supplemental Reading Materials Assessment/Grading/Program Evaluation Frequent, Systematic Assessment New Elementary Report Card PreK-3 Literacy Program Evaluation Professional Development Effective Literacy Smart Start Professional Development School-Level Professional Development Principal Development Interventions Success for All Reading Recovery English-as-a-Second Language Reading Clinic Summer School Parent Education/Involvement Parent-School Compacts Parent Education Conclusions Timelines 28 28 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 37Position Paper PreK-3 Literacy ProgramDraft Little Rock School District March 1999 Introduction Beginning of PreK-3 Literacy Plan The proposed PreK-3 Literacy Plan outlined in this document is the culmination of extensive discussion and debate among district staff, interested parents, and concerned citizens. The discussion began with the launching of a major effort involving more than 500 community volunteers to plan strategically to make a significant difference in the learning lives of all Little Rock School District students. This 1996 undertaking became the first of an array of important planning efforts that, collectively, have charted for the District an exciting and ambitious journey into the 2L century. The Strategic Plan outlined a series of thoughtful actions that have already produced major new initiatives, while impacting almost every realm of current District practice, including the Districts desegregation efforts. One major issue confronting the strategic planners, as well as those involved in framing the subsequent initiatives, is literacy. Too many LRSD students enter school at risk of never learning to read and, alarmingly, the number of these students continues to increase. Illiteracy is a societal issue which has become an educational challenge that cannot be ignored or underestimated. The LRSD is committed to meeting this challenge and through research, analysis, hands-on involvement, professional development, and relentless tenacity, the District is developing an aggressive and very specific course of action, beginning with the PreK-3 Literacy Plan offered here. The plan draws on the work and scope of many initiatives, programs, and practices that are outlined below. Background The Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District Board of Education adopted in 1996 a new Strategic Plan, which was subsequently updated in 1998. Two of the eleven strategies directly address issues relating to student literacy. Strategy 2 of that plan is as follows\nIn partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. 1Draft The Action Plan designed to achieve Strategy 2 delineates the objectives and processes to define, develop, and adopt content standards, performance standards, and delivery standards and then to develop and implement professional development programs for district staff, along with strategies for parent understanding of the standards and assessments. Strategy 3 speaks to the importance of improved student achievement: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the SO'** percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. The Strategy 3 Action Plans call for implementation of action steps relating to literacy development in grades PreK-3:  a policy statement providing for intervention as an operative and vital part of elementary school instruction\n expansion of Reading Recovery/Literacy Support early intervention services for K-3 students who are at risk of not developing literacy skills\n the development of an intervention team at each school which provides systemic support including professional development for teachers which enables all children to sustain adequate yearly progress through grade 3\nand  promotion of school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content. Content will include intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences through an integrated literature-based program. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan In April 1998 the federal district court in Little Rock approved the Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Implementation of this plan is a requisite step toward the Districts attainment of Unitary Status, with the hearing on that petition anticipated in spring 2001. The Plan contains a series of commitments or obligations for the District. Sections 5.2.1 relates specifically to reading/language arts at the primary level: LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page\nb. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\n2Draft c. d. e. f. g-  h. 1. J- k. 1. Promote thematic instruction\nIdentify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-leam skills\nMonitor the appropriateness of teaching/leaming materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\nEstablish uninterrupted blocks of time for feading/language arts and mathematics instruction\nMonitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nProvide parents/guardians with better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\nProvide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first-grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nTrain teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nUse the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day\nand Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. I Other relevant sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan to the PreK-3 Literacy Plan are as follows: 2.7 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students. 2.7.1 LRSD shall assess the academic programs ... after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving Afncan-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve Afiican- American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 2.8 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. 32.12.2 LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. The Campus Leadership Plan The Board of Education adopted the Districts Campus Leadership Plan in July 1998, providing for decentralized, school-based decision-making in some cases and shared decision-making in others. That plan includes a Quality Index based in part on indicators of academic achievement for each level of school. The Quality Index will be the accountability (collective responsibility) system for the Little Rock School District, and it will include, but go beyond, the academic indicators established by the State of Arkansas. The Arkansas Smart Start Initiative In fall 1998 the Arkansas Department of Education launched a major new reform entitled Smart Start. The aim of the K-4 component of Smart Start is to improve reading and mathematics achievement for all students in grades K-4 so that all students meet or exceed grade level requirements by grade 4. The implementation of Smart Start necessitates the coordination of the following four areas: 1. 2. 3. 4. Standards - At grades K-4, they will serve as the basis for the expected levels of proficiency demanded in reading and mathematics. Staff Development - Focused on both teachers and administrators, all activities will promote the mission of Smart Start and emphasize topics related to subject matter content, curriculum alignment with the Frameworks, analysis of assessment results, and the utilization of technology and distance learning. Student Assessment - Will be clearly aligned with the Frameworks and classroom instruction. Accountabilit)' - After standards are clearly communicated, staff development activities have been made available and reliable, valid assessments have been developed and administered, schools will be held accountable for student achievement. Specific staff development programs will be conducted during 1998-99 to include training in the use of a balanced literacy approach, utilizing the states Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4. and Multicultural Reading and Thinking (McRat). The Arkansas Academy for Leadership Training and School-Based Management will begin a series of training sessions for principals, emphasizing proper techniques for aligning their local curriculum to state frameworks and for analyzing student assessment results. 4Draft Grade 4 and Grade 8 Benchmark Exams will be continued during 1998-99 and all school districts have been advised to implement additional assessment components to check student progress prior to Grade 4. Title I Another source for this K-3 Literacy Plan is the Districts Title I program. This federally funded program allocates major resources to the Districts elementary and middle schools for the improvement of reading and mathematics achievement so that all students acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the challenging State content standards and meet the challenging State performance standards developed for all children. The federal Title I regulations include the following related purposes: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Ensuring high standards for all children and aligning the efforts of States, local education agencies, and schools to help children served under this title to teach such standards\nProviding children an enriched and accelerated educational program, including, when appropriate, the use of the arts, through school-wide programs or through additional services that increase the amount and quality of instructional time so that children served under this title receive at least the classroom instruction that other children receive. Promoting school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content that includes intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences\nSignificantly upgrading the quality of instruction by providing staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for professional development\nCoordinating services under all parts of this title with each other, with other educational services, and, to the extent feasible, with health and social service programs funded from other sources\nAffording parents meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at home and at school\nImproving accountability, as well as teaching and learning, by using State assessment systems designed to measure how well children served under this title are achieving challenging State student performance standards expected of all children\nand Providing greater decision-making authority and flexibility to schools and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for student performance. Other Special Populations The needs of students from special populations (special education, 504, limited-English proficient, gifted/talented, and all categories of so-called at-risk students) also informed the design of this K-3 Literacy Plan. Quality early literacy programs can do much to prevent the referral and labeling of students of students for special programs and services. 5Draft Summary Sources, then, for the contents and components of the LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Plan include Strategy 2 and Strategy 3 of the LRSD Strategic Plan\nSection 5.2.1 and other relevant sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nacademic indicators in the Quality Index of the Campus Leadership Plan\nSmart Start standards, assessments, professional development, and accountability\nTitle I regulations, especially those sections addressing the purposes of Title I\nand the needs of students from various special populations. The LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Plan is carefully aligned with and in compliance with all the local, state, and federal mandates, as well as the general philosophy of these planning documents, all of which emphasize the academic success of all children. Methodology In accordance with the goals and strategies of the Districts Strategic Plan, the subsequent recommendations of a Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Work Team, and the court- approved Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the Little Rock School District has established as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. District personnel recognize that to accomplish this goal an aggressive approach to quality and comprehensive early literacy education in grades PreK-3 is essential. This recognition of a need to focus on literacy as a central component of early childhood/primary level education is referenced in the LRSD 1998-99 Priorities within the following subsections of the specific work plan for the Division of Instruction: 11. Align school schedules, prek-12 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/coaching, and parent information/education with Strategic Plan, Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Smart Start. 18. Review Title I programs and services to align with the CCOE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 21. Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget. 22. Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. The apparent logical starting point for accomplishing the ambitious goal of providing, without exception, independent readers in every mainstreamed classroom by the end of 6Draft the third grade was to establish a committee to study District data and practices and to make specific recommendations for a new comprehensive, systemic reform of the prekindergarten through grade 3 language arts program. This committee has been engaged since September 1998 and has undertaken the tasks of reviewing current practices and programs, researching best practices within the reading education arena nation-wide, and recommending a broad course of actions that it believes will best facilitate the Division of Instruction Work Plan in the context of the District 1998-99 Priorities. To accomplish the tasks described above\nthe committee first identified and then completed the following action steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Reviewed current District curriculum and assessment practices and determined current level of implementation and overall appropriateness for achieving goal. Completed the development of the PreK-3 standards and benchmarks for reading/language arts and constructed a curriculum map to ensure alignment with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks and assessments. Reviewed the Arkansas State mandated Smart Start Initiative and identified possible gaps or discrepancies between the Initiative components and the District curricular focus. Identified all supplemental reading programs currently in use in the Districts primary-level classrooms and noted compatibility with the goal, the District curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative\nalso determined whether supplemental efforts strengthened or hindered continuity of effort in relation to achievement of the goal. Compared District student performance to statewide student performance for the purpose of creating a context for District benchmarking. K-3 curriculum maps were reviewed to ensure close alignment of District curriculum and the Arkansas curriculum frameworks. Drew conclusions about effectiveness of current District efforts and summarized key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. Identified and mapped literacy components of all related initiatives, programs, and practices to ensure PreK-3 reading/language arts programming congruence and coherence. 7Draft 8. Recommended key programmatic components essential to timely realization of the initial goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. 9. Recommended key resources and necessary collaborations. Early Literacy Core Committee Members: Pat Price, Early Childhood Gene Parker, Reading Judy Milam, Reading Kris Huffman, Reading Judy Teeter, Reading Tish Henslee, Early Childhood - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Melissa Guldin, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Freeman, Smart Start Patty Kohler, Division of Exceptional Children Involvement and Communication Significant levels of staff, parent, and community involvement have already occurred during the past three years on the issue of PreK-3 literacy. The development of the Strategic Plan, the Reading Summit involving about 150 people two years ago, and the involvement on the Work Team that wrote the initial recommendations for Section 5.2 in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan all informed the design of this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. The public was kept informed of these planning initiatives through public information sessions and the cable television channel. Additional activities will occur to update everyone. Following administrative review of the committee recommendations and proposed budget, the committee shall begin a series of information sessions further to inform principals, teachers, other staff, parents, and community about the proposed changes and to solicit their input on the final design. Once the review and input process has been completed and the committee has had an opportunity to revise their original draft, then the full proposal will be presented to the Board of Education for their review and for approval of the proposed budget. Needs Assessment Data Analysis (Effectiveness) According to an analysis of data conducted by the Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, unacceptable percentages of students across the District are performing at the 8Draft Below Basic level on the Arkansas criterion-referenced tests, and far too few students are performing at the Proficient or Advanced levels. These data are one indication that current practices are not as effective as they must be to achieve District goals relating to student achievement. Arkansas Criterion-Referenced Tests Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy Summary Report, Spring 1998 LRSD District 42% Below Basic 28% Basic 28% Proficient 2% Advanced Region 34% Below Basic 29% Basic 34% Proficient 2% Advanced State 33% Below Basic 30% Basic 35% Proficient 2% Advanced An area of concern is that 48 percent of grade 4 males performed at the Below Basic level, compared to 35 percent of females. Fifty-three percent of Aftican American grade 4 students performed at the Below Basic level, compared to 20 percent of white students. These gaps are, of course, unacceptable and are indicators that current practice is not effective. SAT9, Grade 3 Reading (Stanford Achievement Test) Data from the Fall 1998 administration of the grade 3 SAT9 confirm that too many students are not learning how to read well by grade 3. SAT9 reports student performance in four categories or levels:  Level 1 indicates little or no mastery of fundamental knowledge and skills (roughly equating to the Below Basic level on the state tests).  Level 2 denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are fundamental for satisfactory work (roughly equating to Basic level on the state tests).  Level 3 represents solid academic performance, indicating that students are prepared for the next grade (roughly equating to Proficient level on the state tests).  Level 4 signifies performance beyond grade level mastery (roughly equating to Advanced level on the state tests). LRSD posted the following percentages at each level of performance on the grade 3 reading subtest of the SAT9 in fall 1998: 9Draft Subtests Total Reading Word Study Skills_____ Reading Vocabulary Reading Comprehension Language Spelling Listening % in Level 1 23 19 20 31 22 15 13 % in Level 2 43 46 38 39 40 39 45 % in Level 3 28 22 31 23 30 28 il % in Level 4 7 13 11 7 8 18 10 The grade 3 Reading Comprehension subtest of SAT9 is most like the Arkansas reading test in terms of difficulty. In both cases only approximately 30 percent of LRSD students performed at the Proficient or Advanced levels, again indicating that far too few students are becoming good readers by grade 3. Implications for Social Promotion The issue of social promotion is a concern throughout the country and in Arkansas. Social promotion is the long-standing practice of administrative placement of overage students at the next grade level even though the student is most likely not academically prepared to be successful at that next grade level. Citizens all over the country are calling for an end to this practice, and LRSD must respond to that call. To do so, however, without changes in programs, practices, and opportunities to learn, the District would simply be punishing the under-prepared, overage student. In the early grades, failure to achieve grade-level expectations in reading is the primary reason for retention, (p. 267, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) This PreK-3 Literacy Plan, therefore, includes provisions for the following:  Changes in curriculum through the newly developed local academic content standards and grade-level benchmarks\n Changes in instruction through the adoption of research-based instructional strategies and professional development programs\n Changes in assessment through the addition of research-based assessment strategies af kindergarten and grade 1 designed to both diagnose reading difficulties and to assess progress at the student, school, and District levels\n Early interventions for students at risk of not learning to read through the HIPPY program changes, pre-kindergarten program, ESL program, and an emphasis on the reading clinic at grade 1, followed by summer school for K-1 students who are not performing at grade level.  Changes in the Districts promotion and retention policy that would end social promotion for LRSD students, starting with grade 1 in 1999-2000. 10Draft Alignment and Coherence (Efficiency) There are several quality management needs that are addressed in this plan. The first relates to what W. Edward Deming called constancy of purpose. For instance, it is difficult to describe or to assess the effectiveness of the current LRSD prek-3 curriculum since what is taught differs not only from school to school, but from teacher to teacher in the same school teaching the same grade level. Such fragmentation and lack of defined curriculum are especially harmful to low-performing, mobile children. Every time the family moves, the young child not only has to adjust to a new enviroiunent, a new school, a new teacher or teachers, and new peers, but also, in many cases, a totally different curriculum and approach to instruction. About the time he/she begins to be comfortable, the family may move again, and the confusion returns to the extent that the child may feel that school and confusion are one and the same. These events tend to de-motivate the student to learn and to lessen his/her sense of efficacy-belief that he/she can learn. The LRSD Board of Directors approved new Reading/Language Arts Standards for grades kindergarten through grade six in April 1998. Additional work has been done on these standards to ensure that they are precisely aligned with the revised Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and with the intent of the new statewide Smart Start Initiative. Also, specific grade-level benchmarks have been developed in reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies so that teachers, students, and parents may be as clear as possible about what it is that students are expected to know and be able to do. These grade level benchmarks will serve as the basis for designing quarterly criterion- referenced tests to be used to check individual student progress in relation to achievement of each grade level standard. Secondly, there is in several schools a proliferation of disparate programs, and both reviews of those lists and interviews with the principal and teachers of those schools reveal many times a lack of understanding of how the many programs fit together (lack of coherence) and/or what problems they are intended to solve (lack of alignment). The LRSD Title I plan filed with the Arkansas Department of Education, for example, reveals this problem of lack of constancy of purpose with its long list of Title I programs by school. Many different supplemental programs/philosophies are being used in the elementary schools. Three of these are technology programs: Jostens, New Century, and the Computer Curriculum Corporation Program. The remaining reading and/or language arts programs/methods include the following: Reading Recovery, ELLA, Success for All, Accelerated Reader, Open Court, Shurley Method, Metra Phonics Program, Carbo Reading Styles, McRat,, Writing to Read, Companion Reading, Writing to Write, SRA Labs, High Action Reading Program, Discovery Phonics, Junior Great Books, Reading Is Fundamental, DISTAR, and HOSTS. The duration of implementation of these programs varies from one semester to one to four years per school. 11Draft As many as eight supplemental reading/language arts programs have been implemented at the same time in some schools. For example, four elementary schools are implementing one program, ten schools are implementing two programs, ten schools are implementing three programs, three schools are implementing four programs, four schools are implementing five programs, three schools are implementing six programs, and one school is implementing eight. The program descriptions for the most popular programs are as follows: Jostens, New Century, and Computer Curriculum Corporation fCCC). These systems are computer-based instruction programs. All three are integrated learning systems that provide lessons, practice, and assessment in reading, language arts, and mathematics. A management system for each one provides individualized instruction for students along with a reporting system on student progress. Jostens and CCC include lessons for grades K-6. New Century is appropriate for grades 3-6. Reading Recovery. This intensive early-intervention literacy program features the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. One to one tutoring program Individualized instruction Specially trained teachers. Literacy support groups Home/school reading connection Ongoing assessment. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA). This is a three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques which support emergent learners. The content of the staff development consists of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction Reading process Writing development and instruction Writing/encoding Phonemic awareness Letter discrimination/recognition Letter/sound relationship Recognizing high frequency words 10. Decoding/word attack skills/word analysis 11. Vocabulary development 12. Comprehension strategies 13. Classroom management and organization 14. Parent involvement 15. Authentic assessment/standardized test. 12Draft Success for All. This program restructures elementary schools to make certain every child learns to read in the early grades. It provides specific curricula and instructional strategies for teaching reading. Primary features are as follows\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. School-wide reading curriculum Cooperative learning Grouping by reading level (reviewed by assessment every 8 weeks) Tutoring for students in need of extra assistance Family support team Accelerated Reader. This individualized program allows each student to move at his or her own pace and level of ability. This programs strength is the development of fluency/automaticity and the improvement of comprehension skills. Parental involvement is crucial to the success of this program. Primary features are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Students choice of books from a list of carefully selected books Individualized reading that allow students to move at his or her own pace Computerized tests that measures student comprehension Parental Involvement. Open Court. This phonics program centers on student drill, using a wall sound card chart. Shurlev Method. This program is a way of teaching grammar that gives students a chance to remember rules and definitions through jingles. Metra Phonics Program. This phonics program uses student drills and worksheets and reading exercises. Direct Instruction. This program includes teacher development and carefully organized reading sequences. Through teacher training and in- class coaching, teachers in the lower grades learn to present highly interactive lessons to small groups. Primary features are as follows: 1. Field-tested reading, language arts, and mathematics curricula 2. Highly scripted instructional strategies 3. Extensive training. 13Draft Carbo Reading Styles. This program is designed to increase literacy by matching reading instruction to the students preferred style of reading. Primary features include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Teachers diagnosing students strengths and accommodating them with a range of effective reading strategies Carbo Recorded - Book method Comfortable, relaxed settings Individual and small group work. HOSTS (Help One Student to Succeed). This structured mentoring program in language arts/reading, mathematics, and Spanish language arts ' is an instructional strategy that is tailored to a states, districts, and schools language arts/reading objectives and philosophies. Primary features are as follows: 1. 2. 3. Database and software programs aligned with the school and districts curriculum Students matched with trained parents, businesses, community volunteer mentors, who work to strengthen students reading, writing, vocabulary development, study skills, and higher- order thinking skills Mentors provide role models of successful people who motivate, support, and provide individual student attention. McRat. This two-year staff development process helps teachers infuse higher-order thinking, multicultural concepts, and performance-based assessment into the existing curriculum. The content of the staff development consists of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Instruction focused on four higher-order thinking skills analysis, comparison, inference, and evaluation that students can use in all academic subjects and transfer to practical life situations, Reading and writing skills and strategies that are taught through real reading and writing experiences. Assessment involving performance-based techniques with emphasis on pre- and post-writing assignments. Portfolios used as systematic organized collections of evidence to monitor student growth in skill development. 14Draft Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4. This program is an additional program/philosophy connected with Smart Start and is being pursued by some elementary schools. This program features a two-year staff development process designed to train teachers in instructional techniques which help students become fluent readers and writers. The content of the staff development consists of the following components: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction based on assessment and evaluation Reading process Phonetic skills and strategies Recognizing high frequency words Decoding/word attack skills/word analysis Vocabulary development Comprehension skills and strategies Independent reading and writing Classroom management and organization Assessment Parental involvement. Thirdly, there is currently a lack of alignment in the design of the general education and Title I programs with each other or with the States curriculum frameworks and its new Smart Start initiative or with what is tested. In a curriculum mapping activity early in 1998-99, the staff found major gaps in what had previously been established as the Districts curriculum standards and what was actually being tested on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT9) or the States criterion-referenced tests that are aligned with State academic standards. An obvious conclusion is that it is entirely possible that a major reason for some schools low performance is that they are not exposing the children to the curriculum on which tests are based. Past implementation of District curriculum, in summary, has been inconsistent from school to school due to a variety of factors. These include time allotted to reading/language arts instruction, pull-out programs, lack of comprehensive teacher training, lack of staff to monitor and assist all schools, incompatible supplemental programs, lack of consistent use of district-adopted reading program, lack of cohesive ongoing assessment, and lack of sufficient funding aimed at achieving continuity of effort from grade level to grade level within each school and from school to school within the district. Additional curriculum coordination is needed to ensure continuity of effort and appropriate transition from experiential learning to skill acquisition among pre-k, k, and primary level literacy education efforts across the District. 15Draft Professional Community Research on what works in school restructuring finds that successful and effective schools are those with several identifiable characteristics, including strong professional learning communities. Such schools have a staff who, due to their shared beliefs about student learning and their shared commitment to improvement, engage in ongoing professional development. Their learning is embedded in their work and is totally focused on improvement of every childs academic performance. It will take the form of team meetings where teachers collaboratively plan lessons and thematic units, where they learn and practice effective teaching strategies, and where they collaboratively write and administer assessments and then evaluate student work in the team, not privately. If observing a professional community, one would expect to see ongoing action research, data analysis, discussions of individual and group performance of students, inquiry, reflection, and rich dialogue. In speaking with LRSD principals and teachers, one would find inconsistent evidence of these activities. It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that at least some of the staff do not understand why the school has in place the programs that it has. There is in those schools a lack of opportunities for professional development, lack of research on what works, lack of a theory base, lack of data analysis and program evaluation, and lack of structures and organization that facilitate and make the time for teachers to engage in the very activities that would enhance student achievement. Support for Students Quality management principles insist that processes and procedures should be examined on an ongoing basis so that if students are failing to learn at an acceptable level, then adjustments and modifications must be made immediately to prevent as much failure at the end of the year as possible. End-of-year inspectionstest administrationsare too expensive and too late to modify the practices that led to the failure to start with, and so the cycle begins again with another group of children, many of whom will also fail. Although teachers currently assess on an ongoing basis as a part of their day-to-day work, these assessments do not necessarily lead to changes in school or teacher practices at all or in any change in what the student is experiencing. In other words, those frequent assessments are used more frequently to label students than they are to inform teacher practice, and then at the end of the school year, the school declares many students to be failures. The Arkansas criterion-referenced examinations are administered near the end of the year and only to grade 4 at the elementary level. If schools wait until grade 4 to identify a low-performing student, then the problem is almost beyond solution. SAT9 examinations are administered in the fall, but by the time teachers receive the data and have opportunities to conduct analyses, they are well into the school year and routines/ programs are already set. Students may have already failed one or two quarters, and the results at this point are not very helpful in diagnosing individual student needs. 16Draft At the end of the year there are cunently only three options for a failing K-3 student: to be retained in grade\nto attend summer school to earn promotion\nor to be promoted to the next grade without requisite knowledge and skills to be successful at that level. Only a few elementary schools are currently using their funds for extended day programs, and there does not appear even in some of these a well-designed or articulated program. Clearly, then, the District must put into place the structures and practices that predict student success and prevent failure to every extent possible. In addition, there must be processes in every school to identify as early as possible any learning difficulties, to make immediate adjustments and modifications in instruction, and to provide extended time to learn through pre-school programs and during the school year. Conclusions In terms of quality management, then, the District has reviewed its processes and identified several challenging needs:  improve student achievement and end the practice of social promotion  ensure curriculum/instruction alignment and coherence  provide research-based curriculum and instruction  provide professional development for administrators, teachers, and other staff and create professional learning communities in each school  improve assessment practices and the use of data  provide appropriate prevention and intervention programs to support student success  improve communication with and involvement of parents/guardians. Review of Research This plan reflects the very latest research available on early childhood education, emergent literacy, and the prevention of reading difficulties. Academic success, as defined by high school graduation, can be predicted with reasonable accuracy by knowing someones reading skill at the end of grade 3. (p. 31, National Research Council, 1998) The following are common characteristics that make a practice a best practice (from Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in Americas Schools by Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde, 1998, Heinemann). These are the underlying threads that tie together any successful effort in teaching reading and language arts, and the committee endeavored to ensure that each was included in the program design for the PreK-3 Literacy Program. 17Draft 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Reading means getting meaning from print. Reading is a process. Hearing books read aloud is the beginning of learning to read. Beginning reading instruction should provide children with many opportunities to interact with print. Reading is the best practice for learning to read. An effective reading program exposes students to a wide and rich array of print and goes beyond the use of the basal. Choice is an integral part of literate behavior. Teachers should model reading. Effective teachers of reading help children actively use reading and writing as tools for learning. 10. Children learn reading best in a low-risk environment. 11. Young children should have well-structured instruction in phonics. However, phonics is not a subject in itself, but rather a tool. 12. Teachers should provide daily opportunities for children to share and discuss what they have been reading and writing. 13. In an effective reading program, students spend less time completing workbooks and skill sheets. 14. Writing experiences are provided at all grade levels. 15. Reading assessment should match classroom practice. 16. Schools that are effective in teaching reading have an ethos that supports readini g- .. .the performance of kindergartners on tests of phonological awareness is a strong predictor of their future reading achievement, (p. 54, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998) ... the arguments for including spelling instruction as a major component of the reading program are strong. Learning about spelling reinforces childrens knowledge about common letter sequences. It also reinforces their knowledge about spelling-sound relationships and may help children become aware of word parts. Because of this, spelling practice enhances reading proficiency, (p. 103, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) 18Draft According to research and analysis of the 1994 National Assessment of Education Progress results on the grade 4 reading examination (Teaching for High Standards: What Policymakers Need to Know and Be Able To Do by Linda Darling Hammond and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, 1997, in Implementing Academic Standards, p. D-7), there are several teacher characteristics that are highly correlated with student success in reading: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Teachers having coursework in literature-based instruction Teachers having coursework in integrated approaches to teaching language arts and reading Teachers having coursework in phonics Teachers having coursework in study strategies Teachers having coursework in motivational strategies. Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde also have synthesized the research on best practice in teaching writing. The exemplary writing activities are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. All children can and should write. Teachers must help students find real purposes to write. Students need to take ownership and responsibility. Effective writing programs involve the complete writing process. Teachers can help students get started. Teachers help students draft and revise. Grammar and mechanics are best learned in the context of actual writing. Students need real audiences and a classroom context of shared learning. Writing should extend throughout the curriculum. 10. Effective teachers use evaluation constructively and efficiently. ... for young or uncertain readers, the potential contribution of writing to reading runs deeper than any concern of form or style. In particular, as children become authors, as they struggle to express, refine, and reach audiences through their own writing, they actively come to grips with the most important reading insights of all. (p. 104. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) 19Plan Goals Draft The Superintendent and the staff of the Little Rock School District propose this PreK-3 Literacy Plan to achieve the following goals: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. To end the practice of social promotion (administrative placement of students to the next grade) in the Little Rock School District. To put into place at grades prek-3 (and then to phase in at higher grades) the curriculum, instruction, and assessments, plus necessary supports for students so that increasing percentages of children meet the rigorous academic standards established by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. To ensure that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. To improve student achievement in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and thinking as measured by norm- and criterion-referenced tests determined by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. To prevent, to the extent possible, the need for special education and 504 referrals and services for reading disabilities. To improve communication with and the involvement of parents of PreK-3 children, including those who speak a language other than English. 1. To meet the obligations and commitments made to the community in the Districts Strategic Plan and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and to align with the States Smart Start Initiative. 8. To improve, over time, the overall academic success and graduation rates of students in the Little Rock School District. Effective early reading instruction is crucial to all children. All children must learn to read so that they can read to learn. Since all future learning is predicated on the ability to read, every child requires the best possible foundation in reading, (p. 2, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) 20Draft PreK-3 Literacy Program Design Many of the ingredients for success are already in place at the District level. The new reading/language arts standards and benchmarks are based on the best thinking within the discipline and are aligned with state and national reading education entities. These standards call for rigorous learning experiences for all students that are focused, comprehensive, and designed to result in maximum reader competency by not limiting students to basic skills alone. The multicultural emphasis on learning district-wide affords all students with access to meaningful and relevant learning experiences that lead to learning mastery. Many LRSD schools, as well, have already pieces of a research-based PreK-3 literacy program in place. Others do not, so the pace of full implementation for all schools will differ. Another determiner of pace will be fundinghow quickly a school can align its School Improvement Plan and Title I budgets, for instance. The PreK-3 Literacy Committee believes, after reviewing current practices in the LRSD elementary schools and after identifying the many supplemental reading programs currently in usesome of which are used in place of the District curriculum, that the bold action necessary for improvement requires a thoughtful, deliberate elimination of too much stuff. Teachers and students in PreK-3 classrooms across the District have so much to do that the real focus for learning is in many instances lost entirely or, at best, obscured. The learning goals are clear, but the challenge remains how to clear the learning path of the debris that becomes a daily obstacle for teachers trying to teach and students trying to learn. I Allowing schools to choose how to address district learning goals and district curriculum is difficult. To successfully allow such autonomy requires clear guidelines and thoughtful district/school partnerships, as well as clear understanding and singular vision about desired results. In a district the size of the LRSD, the choice made by one school can and does dramatically impact the entire district. Continuity is essential as students and staff move from school to school. Patrons across the District expect and deserve the same focus and the same quality, regardless of which school their children attend. This committee has studied the final report submitted by the Curriculum Work Group to the District on August 4, 1997, which provided direction for writing the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We concur with the sixteen recommendations made by that group for K-3 reading education. The following summary of key components of those recommendations conveys what we believe is most critical in PreK through grade 3 reading education to achieving the goal that by completion of grade three all students will be reading independently. An outline of program design components, including those reflected in the Curriculum Work Groups report, follows: 21Draft Organizational Changes HIPPY. The HIPPY program shall change its focus of service from four- and five-year olds to three- and four-year olds, given that almost all five- year-olds now attend kindergarten. The HIPPY program staff shall report to the Coordinator of Early Childhood Education under this plan, effective fall 1999. HIPPY is a home-based program in which parents serve as the childs first teacher. The program provides children with school readiness skills and makes reading one of many activities parents and children do together, (p. 144, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) Title I. The District shall restructure its Title I program and budgets in conformance with federal and state regulations to support the implementation of the PreK-3 literacy program and all childrens success in achieving the academic standards and benchmarks. Components of the restructuring shall include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Alignment of Title I programs and services with general education and Smart Start in order to support student success in achieving the rigorous academic standards and benchmarks established by the State and LRSD. Decentralization of decision-making relating to Title I plans and budgets to principals and their Campus Leadership Teams. Embedding the Title I accountability requirements in the LRSD Quality Index. Provision for PreK-3 literacy/mathematics program evaluation under the leadership of the department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Establishing the following priorities for school-level Title I funding: a. b. c. d. e. f. Professional development^building the capacity of existing staff to ensure that all students learn to read by grade 3 Technology to support student success Supplemental instructional materials and supplies, especially for those at risk of failure to learn to read Extended-day interventions to support students at risk of failure Parent education and involvement Focus of programs and services on grades PreK-3 at the elementary level. 22Draft Schools are expressly discouraged from continuing to use the vast majority of their Title I funding simply to employ extra staffunless such staff are absolutely necessary for the implementation of this program, e.g., Reading Recovery, Success for All, or Direct Instruction teachers\nteachers for extended day Reading Clinics\netc. Principals wishing to transfer current Title I employees to the regular budget and programs must collaborate with the department of Human Resources to ensure compliance with the PN agreement. Montview Elementary eliminated remedial reading teachers as part of its schoolwide Title I program, directing its resources instead to professional learning.. .. Montviews results are noteworthy.. .. As a result of the schools hard work, its language arts scores exceeded those in the districts more prosperous, stable schools, (from Meeting the Reading Challenge in Low-Income Schools by Dennis Sparks, Education Week, Nov. 11, 1998) Schools are further discouraged from including travel to conferences in their Title I budgets since the District will have already provided awareness-level training in all the components of this design. Travel will be approved only for visits to exemplary schools implementing a similar design or for in-depth training and development not available in Little Rock or somewhere within the State. Lower Adult-to-Student Ratios for Reading/Language Arts Instruction. Each school is encouraged to lower adult-student ratio to a maximum of 1:15 through the use of all certified personnel in the school during reading instruction. Further, each school is encouraged to explore and identify effective ways to strengthen teacher-student and teacher-parent relationships and to ensure instructional continuity through such strategies as looping, multiage classrooms, etc. The abilities and opportunities of teachers to closely observe and facilitate the literacy learning of diverse groups of children are certainly influenced by the numbers of children they deal with, (p, 229. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998) 23Draft Closeness in the teacher-child relationship was associated with better readiness performance. Closeness is an index of warmth and open communication in the teacher-child relationship, (p. 130, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council. 1998) Minimized/Eliminated Pullouts. Schools must minimize or eliminate entirely pullouts from the classroom during instruction in language arts and mathematics, especially, in PreK-3. No New Programs. The District declares a moratorium on additional new  supplemental reading/language arts programs at the PreK-3 levels for at least three years or until the implementation of these changes can be both formatively and summatively evaluated to determine their effectiveness with the diversity of students in the Little Rock School District. Program Abandonment. In order for the District and each school to be successful in the implementation of these program components, many former programs and practices must be abandoned. The mobility of our students requires us to be consistent in our curriculum and instruction. The importance of coherence requires us to have a common research and theory base for the program components. Also, limitations on teacher time and energy require us to abandon some old programs and practices to make room for the new. Finally, in order to fund these new program components, both District budgets and Title I budgets must be reallocated to fund the teacher development, new teaching materials, and interventions now required. Flexible Schedules for Some Teachers. Schools are encouraged to schedule supplemental teachers differently from the traditional school day in order to fund some of the extended-day interventions that will be critical to success. For instance, instead of a Title I teacher working during regular school hours, she/he could come in at 10:00 a.m. and then work two hours at the end of the day with identified students who require extra time to learn. Waiver Application Requirements. The District provides the opportunity for schools to apply for a waiver from State and District policies, regulations, and programs, if they can demonstrate that their plan has the potential to be more effective with the students in their school. Waivers will continue as a possibility for prek-3 literacy programs. Schools must, however, address the student mobility factor in their application since a powerful reason for consistency across all the schools in the district is the importance of this consistency for mobile students. 24Draft Supplemental reading/language arts programs initiated at the school level must meet the criteria of universally accepted characteristics of best practice in reading. Curriculum and Instruction Alignment. The prek-3 LRSD language arts curriculum at each school shall be tightly aligned with the Arkansas and LRSD curriculum frameworks and the LRSD grade-level benchmarks. By combining aspects of phonics and whole language instruction, teachers can explicitly teach students the relationship between letters and sounds while increasing their comprehension skills and enthusiasm for reading by exposing them to interesting stories and real literature. In so doing, educators can actively address the major obstacles to effective readingdifficulty with the alphabetic principle, failure to acquire and use comprehension skills, and lack of motivation, (p. 5, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Daily Schedule. All schools shall schedule and keep sacred a minimum of two and one-half hours daily for uninterrupted instruction in reading/ language arts. The following time allocations are not rigid. Rather, they are guidelines for teachers to use in planning how students should spend their timeboth to ensure that all the critical components are included and to ensure adequate time for student engagement in the activities. Twenty minutes - The teacher reads good literature aloud. The single most important activity for building the knowledge and skills eventually required for reading appears to be reading aloud to children regularly and interactively, (p. 124, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary-building, and word study (word sorts, word walls, word families, spelling patterns) Letter recognition skills are strong predictors of reading success, (p. 124. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) 25Draft Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in shared reading (teacher-guided discussions of reading, including language experience stories, big books, other literature) Children learn a great deal about both the nature and function of print through thoughtful interactions with adults, (p. 124, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Thirty minutes - Students are engaged in independent reading at childs fluency level (wordless books, picture books, chapter books) Children should be given as much opportunity and encouragement as possible to practice their reading. Beyond the basics, childrens reading facility, as well as their vocabulary and conceptual growth, depends strongly on the amount of text they read. (p. 127, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in writing (journal keeping, stories, responding to literature\nusing age-appropriate developmental spelling and drawing) Independent writing activities are a means of developing childrens deeper appreciation of the nature of text and its comprehension, (p. 126, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Forty minutes - Students are engaged in guided reading instruction (small group in which teacher provides support for development of reading strategies within students zone of proximal development). The instructional level is the highest level at which the child can do satisfactory reading provided that he or she receives preparation and supervision from a teacher: errors in word recognition are not frequent, and comprehension and recall are satisfactory, (p. 213, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) 26Draft To nudge the children toward new understandings about reading, we want to provide assistance so that children can rehearse the text at a level that is just above where they function on their own. (p. 29, Emerging Readers and Writers by Martha Combs, in Vygotsky in the Classroom, 1996) Throughout the day, everydayStudents are engaged in activities designed to develop and to provide practice in enhancing their communication and social skills in the classroom, in the cafeteria, in before- and after-school activities, and on the playground. Additional time in language arts is also provided in the other content areas. For example, students should read and write within the context of a thematic unit at other times during the day. ... it is not only the time allocated for reading that is important. How that time is spent is also important. Low achievers generally are given less classroom time to read text than their higher achieving peers. When low achievers are asked to read, the reading tends to be oral, round-robin style, with the consequence that they read far fewer words, stories and books, (p. 118, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Limited-English Proficient Students. The District shall restructure its programs and services for limited-English proficient students in grades PreK-3 to align with this program design and to address the recommendations of the Office of Civil Rights as a result of their compliance review in April 1999. Many studies support the notion of a balanced literacy program as appropriate for students whose first language is not English, that is, programs that provide a balance of explicit instruction and student- directed activities that incorporate aspects of both traditional and meaning-based curricula, (p. 25. Building a Knowledge Base in Reading by Jane Braunger and Jan Lewis, 1998) Special Education and 504 Students. The diverse needs of special education and Section 504 children are included in this design, and the successful implementation of this plan is expected to reduce the numbers and percentages of children referred for special education or 504 programs and services relating to reading disabilities. 27Draft Early Literacy Learning (ELLA). The centerpiece of the K-2 literacy program shall be Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), which includes a balanced literacy program, the reading process, writin\nstrategies, assessment, spelling/phonics deyelopment, classroom management strategies, and word building. g The instruction of the most effectiye teachers included attention to explicit teaching of skills, an emphasis on literature, and much reading and writing. The National Research Council synthesis also confirms that the best method for teaching children to read is coherent instruction that combines a yariety of approaches, (p. 5, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Thematic Instruction. Thematic instruction is promoted and encouraged. Schools should proyide for professional deyelopment, materials and supplies, and collaboratiye planning time for teachers to deyelop thematic units and to design assessments. The Social Nature of Learning. Giyen that learning is a social act, each teacher must acquire the skills to facilitate cooperatiye learning and other small group strategies so that student learning is mediated not only by the teacher, but also by peers. Additionally, the school must foster social interactions between and among children and between and among children and adults at eyery reasonable opportunityin classrooms, on the playground, in the cafeteria, and in before- and after-school programs. In this light, the practice of maintaining silent cafeterias is inappropriate. ... the fact that you learn to talk by talking implies that children should simply be allowed to talk far more than they currently do in school. The school norm of silent classrooms must be abolished\nironically, when teachers enforce the standard of silence, they are in a yery real sense making learning illegal, (p. 14, Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in Americas Schools by Steyen Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde) 29Draft Gifted/Talented Students. The needs of gifted/talented students are also included in this design. The ongoing assessment of student performance and the regrouping of students for instruction shall enable advanced students to continue their own growth in all areas of the language arts. Each school is expected not only to decrease the percent of students performing at the lower levels, but also dramatically to increase the percent of students performing at the \"Proficient and Advanced levels. Frequent Assessment and Regrouping for Instruction. Each school is encouraged to create a schedule to facilitate necessary changes and to design a grouping/re-grouping strategy, such as the regrouping strategies employed in Success for All or the modified Joplin plan to customize/ personalize guided reading activities. Tracking of students is unacceptable practice in the Little Rock School District, but short-term, flexible grouping based on individual student needs is a research-based, effective instructional strategy. Heterogeneous cooperative learning groups are strongly encouraged in all subject areas. Some research has found that long-term grouping of students by achievement or ability level is less effective than more flexible grouping based on specific, current skills of students. Such flexible grouping arrangements require that problem readers be monitored frequently on critical reading indicators, so that groups and instruction can be adjusted to their current needs, (p. 5, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Phonemic Awareness. All kindergarten teachers shall receive professional development to teach Animated Literacy, an effective, research-based phonemic awareness component that is compatible with the planned overall reading/language arts program. Training for teachers and the necessary instructional materials for this intervention may be funded through the schools Title I budget. As schools acquire technology, there are a number of software systems that would also achieve this goal that the Campus Leadership Team may wish to consider. There are basic skills all students must acquire to read effectively. These skills include phonemic awareness, decoding strategies, vocabulary development, and comprehension strategies, (p. 2, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) 28Draft Young children should engage in reading and writing experiences that integrate language and action in a social context. It is in the social context of literacy activity that children are able to interpret their literacy experiences and internalize knowledge about reading and writing, (p. 26, Emerging Readers and Writers by Martha Combs in Vygotskv in the Classroom. 1996) Role of the Librarv/Media Center. Each school shall ensure students easy and frequent access (no fewer than one to two visits weekly) to the library/media center, and all students shall be encouraged through schoolwide strategies to read as many books as possible for pleasure. Summer, winter-break, and spring break reading lists will be distributed to all LRSD children, beginning summer 1999. Supplementary Reading Materials. Each school shall conduct an inventory of its PreK-3 classroom reading materials. Regular budgets and Title I funds may be used to acquire additional support materials, such as classroom literature sets and other sets of books to help teachers help students meet the curriculum standards and benchmarks in ways that address the needs of individual students, particularly those students functioning below the proficiency level. Comprehensive beginning reading programs are supported by adequate resources, (p. 3, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998) Assessment/Grading/Program Evaluation Frequent, Systematic Assessment. The District, in collaboration with the schools, shall create a systematic assessment system for grades PreK-3 so that student progress can be frequently monitored and aligned with LRSD benchmarks and Arkansas criterion-referenced tests and appropriate modifications made to the instructional program. The assessment components shall include a minimum of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Running Records, etc., grades K-1 (diagnostic/prescriptive) LRSD Phonemic Awareness Assessment - K- 1 (readiness profile) LRSD CRT - Criterion Reference Test - grades 2-3 Individual Reading Inventory, grades K - 3 (as needed basis) Student portfolios to examine growth over time, grades K-3. 30Draft Adequate progress in learning to read beyond the initial level depends on\nhaving a working understanding of how sounds are represented alphabetically\ngetting sufficient practice in reading to achieve fluency with different kinds of text\nhaving sufficient background knowledge and vocabulary to render written texts meaningful and interesting\nacquiring control over strategies for monitoring comprehension and repairing misunderstandings\nand maintaining interest and motivation to read for a variety of purposes, (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice. The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) New Elementary Report Card. The District shall form a representative committee of staff and parents no later than June 1999 to redesign the elementary report card so that it reflects the standards-based approach to teaching and learning and so that it provides more accurate and specific information to parents regarding their childs progress in meeting the academic content standards of LRSD. PreK-3 Literacy Program Evaluation. In keeping with the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District shall employ with Title I funding a program evaluator, who shall annually report on the level of effectiveness of the innovations in this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Professional Development I Teachers who teach reading must receive better training and engage in ongoing professional development in reading instruction, (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) 31Draft Effective Literacy. Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 features a two-year staff development process designed to train teachers in instructional techniques which help students become fluent readers and writers, building on the skills developed in K-2. The content of the staff development consists of the following components: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction based on assessment and evaluation The reading process Phonetic skills and strategies Recognizing high frequency words Decoding/word attack skills/word analysis Vocabulary development Comprehension skills and strategies Independent reading and writing 10. Classroom management and organization 11. Assessment 12. Parent involvement Smart Start Professional Development. The District and each school should leverage as much as possible the professional development opportunities provided by ADE for Smart Start implementation, since the LRSD literacy plan is tightly aligned with Smart Start, which also promotes ELLA and Effective Literacy as recommended language arts programs. School-Level Professional Development. The District and each school shall create a professional development plan that reflects the standards for elementary school professional development (from the National Council for Staff Development) and which reflects the priorities in the School Improvement Plan (including the schools Title I plan), especially the implementation of ELLA. Each schools Campus Leadership Team is charged with the responsibility to create collaborative cultures to support change through activities associated with a professional learning community: (1) collegial plarming/teaming and assessment of student work\n(2) collective responsibility for results\n(3) ongoing, job-embedded learning\n(4) action research and inquiry\n(5) continuous improvement\n(6) empowerment through the activities of the Campus Leadership program. 32Draft A report published by the Consortium on Reading Excellence advocates that inservice professional development should:  include current theory and research  provide training in assessment and instruction for phonemic awareness  convey dynamic methods to teach phonics and make use of connected texts  demonstrate effective ways to teach spelling that will reinforce reading  include a diagnostic tool kit that will enable teachers to teach what children need  include whole language strategies and powerful uses of literature  provide practice with children in a clinical setting with ample opportunity for feedback and support\nand  assist teachers to effectively implement balanced literacy programs, (p. 6, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Principal Development. The District shall design and implement a professional development program for elementary principals and other administrators that is aligned with the PreK-3 Literacy Plan components. Interventions Success for All. Schools currently implementing Success for All may continue, provided that the curriculum includes the Arkansas and LRSD academic standards and benchmarks. Student performance data should be thoroughly analyzed to determine the success of current practices, and then, if necessary, the program should be modified for improved results or abandoned. Reading Recovery. Schools implementing Reading Recovery may continue to do so with their Title I funding. Other schools may choose to redirect their Title I funding to this grade 1 intervention if the Campus Leadership Team makes this decision. 33Draft English-as-a-Second Language (ESL). English-as-a-Second Language programs and services will be provided in the four Newcomer Centers for students who are limited-English proficient. These students need similar instruction as that required for other children to learn reading/language arts, but they will also require some extended time to become proficient in English. Reading Clinic Intervention. Each school shall include in its Title I budget the funding for an after-school Reading Clinic or another researchbased intervention to prevent reading failures before the end of the school year. Although volunteer tutors can provide very valuable practice and motivational support for children learning to read, the research does not show that they are effective in providing primary reading instruction or in helping children with serious learning difficulties, (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Summer School. The District shall prioritize its elementary funding of summer school programs around the needs of grades k-1 students. The District shall design an intensive summer reading program patterned after the Reading Clinic approach. Early identification and intervention are vital. Some children have more difficulty learning to read than others. Therefore, effective methods for preventing and addressing these difficulties must be included in any comprehensive instructional plan. (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Parent Education/Involvement Parent-School Compacts. Each school is encouraged to identify strategies to embed the Title I mandated parent-school compact in the culture of the school and to use this vehicle as a means of improving school-to-parent communication and parent understanding of the LRSD academic standards and benchmarks and ways they can support their childs success. 34Draft Parent Education. The District shall align its parent education\n' involvement programs, including those involving Title I parents, at the PreK-3 levels with the components of this PreK-3 Literacy Plan and with the PreK-3 provisions for mathematics and science in the National Science Foundation project. Also, this component will include the Strategy 2 Action Plan activities recently approved as amendments to the Strategic Plan. Hess and Holloway (1984) identified five broad areas of family functioning that may influence reading development. They are: 1. Value placed on literacy: by reading themselves and encouraging children to read, parents can demonstrate that they value reading. 2. Press for achievement: by expressing their expectations for achievement by their children, providing reading instruction, and responding to the childrens reading initiations and interest, parents can create a press for achievement. 3. 4. 5. Availability and instrumental use of reading materials: literacy experiences are more likely to occur in homes that contain childrens books and other reading and writing materials. Reading with children: parents can read to preschoolers at bedtime or other times and can listen to schoolchildrens oral reading, providing assistance as needed. Opportunities for verbal interaction: a lower quality of verbal interaction constitutes a risk factor primarily in that it relates closely to lowered child vocabulary scores, (p. 121-122, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) Conclusions These recommendations are the result of extensive study, collaboration, and thoughtful deliberation over more than two years and intensively during the last seven months. They convey a practical, meaningful, and doable framework for action that can and will, if properly sanctioned, lead to realization of the goal that all LRSD students will read independently by the end of the third grade. The committee recognizes that recommendations made by well-meaning people often become unrealized hopes or dreams. We are committed to acting on these recommendations and, therefore, ask for immediate approval to begin their implementation. 35Draft We have agreed to continue to work together as a committee to oversee implementation of the recommendations. We will meet monthly to review progress and to ensure the cohesiveness of each action component. To help manage the tasks that lie ahead, we have developed a timeline which we believe should be immediately incorporated into the Division of Instructions work plan for the remainder of the school year. The timeline is attached for review, along with the proposed budget. In conclusion, to set as a goal that the District will ensure that all students are reading independently by the end of the third grade is ambitious, at the very least. Such a goal, however, is one that must be achieved, if all students are to have equitable access to an education that prepares them for productive adult lives in the twenty-first century. It is, therefore, imperative that the District provide unwavering support for the clearly focused, best-practice based, district-wide PreK-3 reading/language arts curriculum and program we believe our recommendations will provide. Such support requires dedication of all necessary resources to the effort, whether the resources are school-based or district based, district-fimded or Title I supplemental. Campus-based decision making must be based on clear district guidelines and, if necessary, policy so that all schools in the LRSD exemplify best practice in the delivery of this critically important program. 365 Timelines Activities_________________________________________ 1. Plan summer school curriculum, instructional focus, and professional development for summer 1999\nalso complete student selection process._____ 2. Identify timeline for delivery of training modules\nschedule dates, sites.___________________________ 3. Develop criteria matrix for supplemental reading programs._____________________________________ 4. Conduct awareness sessions with elementary principals and teachers on the PreK-3 Literacy Plan. 5. Write guidelines/regulations for schools to follow when scheduling at grades PreK-3._______________ 6. Write guidelines/teacher manual for two and one- half hour language arts block (make grade specific\ninclude how to/what to do/why do it/troubleshooting sections)._____________________________________ 1. Design classroom profile rubrics (make grade specific\nformat status quo to most desirable matrix). 8. Design teacher practice rubrics.________________ 9. Design criteria for materials selection (identify required materials\ndevelopment guidelines for additional materials). ______________________ 10. Complete PreK-3 standards, benchmarks, curriculum maps\npublish for teachers and parents. 11. Develop guidelines for thematic instruction. 12. Develop assessment plan.____________________ 13. Develop training modules for each component part of plan.___________________________________ 14. Write guidelines for school implementation of After-School Reading Clinics.____________________ 15. Begin module-based teacher training. 16. Order and distribute ELLA materials.________ 17. Reorganize HIPPY programs and services to be appropriate for age three and four students.________ 18. Provide to principals their projected Title I budgets, planning requirements, and other information related to the restructuring of Title I programs. Draft Date February 1999 February April April April April May May May May May May April and ongoing May June and ongoing June and July June April 37! I Draft Activities __________________________________ 19. Establish criteria for approval of Title I plans and communicate to principals and Campus Leadership Teams._______________________________________ 20. Compile lists of recommended reading for PreK- 3 students for summer\npost in businesses and libraries around the community and provide to parents._____________________ 21. Review and approve Title I plans._____________ 22. Plan and implement staff development for principals on the administration of the new plan. 23. Design, produce, and publish for fall distribution a parent brochure on the PreK-3 plan, including all components (such as Title I, Smart Start, etc.).______ 24. Redesign the PreK-3 report cards so that communication with parents is improved.__________ 25. Design the program evaluation study and set up data-collection procedures. Date May May June June June July July 381 Ji LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 July 7, 1999 TO: Melissa Guldin, ODM Monitor FROM: Pat Price, Coordinator of Early Childhood Education SUBJECT: Revised PreK-3 Literacy Plan Enclosed please find a copy of the revised PreK-3 Literacy Plan, being printed at the print shop now for distribution to the schools. if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. PP/adg Enclosure received Jill 1999 OfHCEOf deskresaw,MOM,TOffiXS These arePosition Paper PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan Little Rock School District June 1999 Introduction Origins for the PreK-3 Literacy Plan The proposed PreK-3 Literacy Plan outlined in this document is the culmination of extensive discussion and debate among district staff. interested parents, consulting colleagues, and concerned citizens. The discussion began with the launching of a major effort involving more than 500 community volunteers to plan strategically to make a significant difference in the learning lives of all Little Rock School district students. array of important planning This 1996 undertaking became the first of an efforts that, collectively, have charted for the District an exciting and ambitious journey into the 21^^ century. The Strategic Plan outlined a series of thoughtful actions that have already produced major new initiatives, while impacting almost every realm of current District practice, including the Districts desegregation efforts. One major issue confronting the strategic planners, as well as those involved in framing the subsequent initiatives, was literacy. Too many LRSD students enter school at risk of never learning to read and, alarmingly, the number of these students continues to increase. Illiteracy is a societal issue that has become an educational challenge that cannot be ignored or underestimated. The LRSb is committed to meeting this challenge and through research, analysis, hands-on involvement. professional development, and relentless tenacity, the District is developing an aggressive and very specific course of action, beginning with the PreK-3 Literacy Plan offered here. The plan draws on the work and scope of many initiatives, programs, and practices that are outlined below. 1Background The Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District Board of Education adopted in 1996 a new Strategic Plan, which was subsequently updated in 1998. Two of the eleven strategies directly address issues relating to student literacy. \"Strategy 2\" of that plan is as follows\nIn partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. The Action Plan designed to achieve \"Strategy 2\" delineates the objectives and processes to define, develop, and adopt content standards, performance standards, and delivery standards and then to develop and implement professional development programs for district staff, along with strategies for parent understanding of the standards and assessments. Strategy 3\" speaks to the importance of improved student achievement: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. The \"Strategy 3\" Action Plans call for implementation of action steps relating to literacy development in grades PreK-3\na policy statement providing for intervention as an operative and vital part of elementary school instruction\nexpansion of Reading Recovery/Literacy Support early intervention services for K-3 students who are at risk of not developing literacy skills\n2the development of an intervention team at each school which provides systemic support including professional development for teachers which enables all children to sustain adequate yearly progress through grade 3\nand promotion of school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content. Content will include intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences through an integrated literature-based program. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan In April 1998 the federal district court in Little Rock approved the District's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Implementation of this plan is a requisite step toward the District's attainment of Unitary Status, with the hearing on that petition anticipated in spring 2001. The Plan contains a series of commitments or obligations for the District. Section 5.2.1 relates specifically to reading/language arts at the primary level: LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page\nb. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\nc. Promote thematic instruction\nd. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills\n3e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\nf. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction\ng. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nh. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\ni. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first-grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nj. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nk. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day\nand I. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Other relevant sections of the Revised desegregation and Education Plan to the PreK-3 Literacy Plan are as follows: 2.7 LRSd shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students. 42.7.1 LRSD shall assess the academic programs . . . after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 2.8 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. 2.12.2 LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. The Campus Leadership Plan The Board of Education adopted the District's Campus Leadership Plan in July 1998, providing for decentralized, school-based decision-making in some cases and shared decision-making in others. That plan includes a Quality Index based in part on indicators of academic achievement for each level of school. The Quality Index will be the accountability (collective responsibility) system for the Little Rock School District, and it will include, but go beyond, the academic indicators established by the State of Arkansas. The Arkansas Smart Start Initiative In fall 1998 the Arkansas Department of Education launched a major new reform entitled Smart Start. The aim of the K-4 component of Smart Start is to improve reading and mathematics achievement for all students in grades K-4 so that all students meet or exceed grade level requirements by grade 4. The implementation of Smart Start necessitates the coordination of the following four areas\n51. Standards - At grades K-4, they will serve as the basis for the expected levels of proficiency demanded in reading and mathematics. 2, staff Development - Focused on both teachers and administrators, all activities will promote the mission of Smart Start and emphasize topics related to subject matter content, curriculum alignment with the Frameworks, analysis of assessment results, and the utilization of technology and distance learning. 3. Student Assessment - Will be clearly aligned with the Frameworks and classroom instruction. 4. Accountability - After standards are clearly communicated, staff development activities have been made available and reliable, valid assessments have been developed and administered, schools will be held accountable for student achievement. Specific staff development programs conducted during 1998-99 included training in the use of a balanced literacy approach, utilizing the state's Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4, and Multicultural Reading and Thinking (McRat). The Arkansas Academy for Leadership Training and School-Based AAanagement will begin a series of training sessions for principals, emphasizing proper techniques for aligning their local curriculum to state frameworks and for analyzing student assessment results. Grade 4 and Grade 8 Benchmark Exams were continued during 1998-99 and all school districts have been advised to implement additional assessment components to check student progress prior to Grade 4. Title I Another source for this K-3 Literacy Plan is the District s Title I program. This federally funded program allocates major resources to the District's elementary and middle schools for the improvement of reading and mathematics achievement so that all students \"acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the challenging State content standards and meet the 6challenging State performance standards developed for all children, federal Title I regulations include the following related purposes: The Q, Ensuring high standards for all children and aligning the efforts of States, local education agencies, and schools to help children served under this title to teach such standards, b. Providing children on enriched end accelerated educational program, including, when appropriate, the use of the arts, through school-wide programs or through additional services that increase the amount and quality of instructional time so that children c. served under this title receive at least the classroom instruction that other children receive. Promoting school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content that includes intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences\nd. Significantly upgrading the quality of instruction by providing staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for professional development\ne, Coordinating services under all parts of this title with each other. with other educational services, and, to the extent feasible, with health and social service programs funded from other sources, f. Affording parents meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at home and at school\ng- Improving accountability, as well as teaching and learning, by using State assessment systems designed to measure how well children served under this title are achieving challenging State student performance standards expected of all children, and h. Providing greater decision-making authority and flexibility to schools and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for student performance. Other Special Populations The needs of students from special populations (special education, 504, limited-English proficient, gifted/talented, and all categories of so-called at-risk\" students) also informed the design of this K-3 Literacy Plan. Quality early literacy programs can do much to prevent the referral and labeling of students for special programs and services. 7Summary Sources, then, for the contents and components of the LRSd PreK-3 Literacy Plan include Strategy 2 and Strategy 3 of the LRSd Strategic Plan\nSection 5.2.1 and other relevant sections of the Revised desegregation and Education Plan\nacademic indicators in the Quality Index of the Campus Leadership Plan\nSmart Start standards, assessments, professional development, and accountability\nTitle I regulations, especially those sections addressing the purposes of Title I\nand the needs of students from various special populations. The LRSd PreK-3 Literacy Plan is carefully aligned with and in compliance with all the local, state, and federal mandates, as well as the general philosophy of these planning documents, all of which emphasize the academic success of all children. Methodology In accordance with the goals and strategies of the district s Strategic Plan, the subsequent recommendations of a Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Work Team, and the court-approved Revised desegregation and Education Plan, the Little Rock School district has established as a goal that \"by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page.\" district personnel recognize that to accomplish this goal an aggressive approach to quality and comprehensive early literacy education in grades PreK-3 is essential. This recognition of a need to focus on literacy as a central component of early childhood/primary level education is referenced in the LRSd 1998-99 Priorities within the following subsections of the specific work plan for the division of Instruction: 11. Align school schedules, prek-12 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/coaching, and parent information/education with Strategic Plan, Revised desegregation and Education Plan, and Smart Start. 18. Review Title I programs and services to align with the CCOE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Revised desegregation and Education Plan. 821, Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget. 22, Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. The apparent logical starting point for accomplishing the ambitious goal of providing, without exception, independent readers in every mainstreamed classroom by the end of the third grade was to establish a committee to study District data and practices and to make specific recommendations for a new comprehensive, systemic reform of the pre-kindergarten through grade 3 language arts program. This committee has been engaged since September 1998 and has undertaken the tasks of reviewing current practices and programs, researching best practices\" within the reading education arena nation-wide, and recommending a broad course of actions that it believes will best facilitate the Division of Instruction Work Plan in the context of the District 1998-99 Priorities. To accomplish the tasks described above\nthe committee first identified and then completed the following action steps\n1. Reviewed current District curriculum and assessment practices and determined current level of implementation and overall appropriateness for achieving goal. 2. Completed the development of the PreK-3 standards and benchmarks for reading/language arts and constructed a curriculum map to ensure alignment with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks and assessments. 3. Reviewed the Arkansas State mandated Smart Start Initiative and identified possible gaps or discrepancies between the Initiative components and the District curricular focus. 94. Identified all \"supplemental\" reading programs currently in use in the district's primary-level classrooms and noted compatibility with the goal, the district curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative\nalso determined whether supplemental efforts strengthened or hindered continuity of effort in relation to achievement of the goal. 5. Compared {District student performance to statewide student performance for the purpose of creating a context for district benchmarking. K-3 curriculum maps were reviewed to ensure close alignment of district curriculum and the Arkansas curriculum frameworks. 6. drew conclusions about effectiveness of current district efforts and summarized key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. 7. Identified and mapped literacy components of all related initiatives, programs, and practices to ensure PreK-3 reading/language arts programming congruence and coherence. 8. Recommended key programmatic components essential to timely realization of the initial goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. 9. Recommended key resources and necessary collaborations. 10Early Literacy Core Committee Members'. Pat Price, Earl'y Childhood Gene Parker, Reading Judy Milam, Reading Kris Huffman, Reading Judy Teeter, Reading Tish Henslee, Early Childhood - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Melissa Guldin, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Freeman, Smart Start Patty Kohler, Division of Exceptional Children Involvement and Communication Significant levels of staff, parent, and community involvement had already occurred during the past three years on the issue of PreK-3 literacy before the work of this specific plan. The development of the Strategic Plan, the Reading Summit involving about 150 people two years ago, and the involvement on the Work Team that wrote the initial recommendations for Section 5.2 in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan all informed the design of this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. The public was kept informed of these planning initiatives through public information sessions and the cable television channel. Additional activities occurred during March, April, May, and early June 1999 to update everyone. Following administrative review of the committee recommendations and proposed budget, the committee began a series of information sessions further to inform principals, teachers, other staff, parents, and community about the proposed changes and to solicit their input on the final design. Copies of the draft plan were sent to every elementary principal and every PreK-3 teacher in the Little Rock School District for their review and discussion, and numerous presentations were made to various groups. The June 2-3-4 inservice focused in large part on discussions of the plan. Once the review and input process was completed and the committee had had an opportunity to revise their original draft, then the full proposal was presented to the Board of Education for their review in June 1999. 11Needs Assessment data Analysis (Effectiveness) According to an analysis of data conducted by the department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, unacceptable percentages of students across the district are performing at the \"Below Basic\" level on the Arkansas\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_1068","title":"Little Rock School District Board","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":["1999/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School board members","School boards","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Board"],"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/1068"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n   c.. C..II C D. CD .::s. Ill    SECTION J: STUDENTS Section J of the Little Rock School District contains policies, regulations, and exhibits on students - admissions, attendance, rights and responsibilities, conduct, discipline, health and welfare, and school-related activities. JE JFABB JFABB-R JJ JJ-R JJIB JJIB-R1 JJIB-R2 JLDBD JMA JMA-R JRAA Student Attendance Foreign Exchange Students Foreign Exchange Students Student Co-curricular/Extracurricular Activities Student Co-curricular/Extracurricular Activities Interscholastic Athletics/Cheerleading/Drill Team High School Interscholastic Athletics/Cheerleading/Drill Team/Pep Club Middle School Interscholastic Athletics/Cheerleading/Drill Team/Pep Club Sex and Child Offender Notification Scholarships Scholarship Program Regulation Student Discipline Records APR 5 2000    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JE STUDENT ATTENDANCE The Board of Education believes that the instructional program is the vital part of formal education and that students realize greater benefits when they attend regularly. When students are absent, they are missing an integral part of instruction that usually can not be made up outside the classroom. Thus, regular attendance will be necessary to accomplish preparation for maximum levels of achievement or full course credit. All students are required to maintain a level of attendance which will enable them to discharge their responsibility as learners and will enable the school to meet its obligations to the students. According to state law, any child five years (5) of age through seventeen years (17), on or before September 15 of the particular school year, who has not been officially excluded from school, must be in attendance at school or enrolled in a home schooling program . Adopted: September 23, 1999 Legal Reference: AC.A. ACT 570, 1999 ED T 4 1999 ufFICEOf DESEGREGATION MONITOftWQ    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JFABB FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS The Little Rock School District supports the enrollment of foreign exchange students in the District schools. The District is part of a global society and students in the District will benefit from learning about the culture and traditions of students from other countries. As the District participates in such exchanges, students in the Little Rock School District will gain a broad exposure to ideas that promote appreciation for cultural diversity, tolerance for others, and understanding of our similarities and differences. It is the policy of the Board of Education to accept the enrollment in the Little Rock School District of qualified foreign exchange students . Adopted: July 23, 1998 Cross Reference: Administrative Policy JFABB-R  APR 5 2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I ltlCE OF NEPN CODE: JFABB-R DESEGREG JION MO~ITORI FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS The Little Rock School District will enroll foreign exchange students subject to the following procedures: 1. The Little Rock School District will enroll foreign exchange students who petition the District through a program that is recognized by the advisory list published by the Council on Standards for International Educational Travel, supported by the National Association of Secondary School Principals. 2. Enrollment will occur only when all local, state, and national rules and regulations relative to foreign students' participation in educational exchanges have been followed. 3. The Student Assignment Office may limit the number of foreign exchange students entering a school. 4. Foreign exchange students must possess sufficient skills in English to participate fully  in the educational program of a school.  5. Foreign exchange students must be represented by a local coordinator and must have a host family at the time of registration with the Student Assignment Office. 6. No more than two (2) foreign exchange students may reside with a local coordinator of a program placing students in the District. 7. The Little Rock School District will accept the enrollment of foreign exchange students from other school districts, as long as enrollment conforms to established transfer procedures. 8. Foreign exchange students will state their intent to either receive a diploma or not at the time of enrollment in the District. Should a diploma be desired, foreign exchange students must meet all Little Rock School District graduation requirements. 9. Foreign exchange students will receive school assignments from the Student Assignment Office in accordance with established assignment policies. 10. Foreign exchange students must be registered with the Student Assignment Office no later than July 15 of the year of enrollment. Early spring enrollment is recommended so to give the school time to develop a schedule for the student and to ensure that the student has opportunities to select appropriate courses . Date: July 23, 1998 Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy JFABB    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JJIB INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETICS/CHEERLEADING/DRILL TEAM The Little Rock School District will provide interscholastic athletics for female and male students. Interscholastic athletics will include team and individual sports, cheerleading, drill team and pep club activities. Students electing to participate in interscholastic athletics will meet State Department of Education, Arkansas Activities Association, and District eligibility requirements . Adopted: November 18, 1999 Cross References: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan APR 5 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATIO~J MONITORING Official Handbook of the Arkansas Activities Association National Federation Official High School Spirit Rule Book LRSD Senior High School Student Handbook LRSD Middle School Student Handbook    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JLDBD SEX AND CHILD OFFENDER NOTIFICATION Act 989 of 1997, Megan's Law, establishes a system of registration for convicted sex and child offenders and for community notification. After receiving information regarding a convicted offender from a local law enforcement official, the District will notify school personnel, students and their families according to State Board of Education guidelines. It is the policy of the Board of Education to notify appropriate school personnel, students and their families when information from a local law enforcement agency is provided to the District that a convicted sex or child offender has established residence in the school district. Procedures governing the notification required by Act 989 of 1997 are found in the regulations . Adopted: December 3, 1998 Legal References: Act 989 of 1997 Cross References: Administrative Regulation    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JMA SCHOLARSHIPS The Board of Education is committed to the establishment of a college scholarship program for students who graduate from District high schools after having attended a racially identifiable elementary school. The program will be maintained at least until graduation of the class that begins kindergarten during the 2000-2001 school year. The Board directs the administration to develop and implement a scholarship program consistent with the intent of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan . Adopted: April 22, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JRAA STUDENT DISCIPLINE RECORDS It is the policy of the Board of Education to purge student discipline records after the fifth {5th ) and eighth (8th ) grade of all offenses except weapons offenses, arson and robbery unless the District determines that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student.  Adopted: June 24, 1999    SECTION K: SCHOOL-COMMUNITY-HOME RELATIONS Section K of the Little Rock School District policy manual contains policies, regulations, and exhibits on parent and community involvement in schools. Except for policies concerning education agencies, statements on public sector relations with the school district are located in this section, too. KDA KDD KDE KF KF-R KFC KH KH-R Kl KL KLE KLG' KLG-R Public Information/School Communications Program News Media Relations Crisis Management Community Use of Facilities Community Use of Facilities Community Use of Outdoor Facilities Solicitations in Schools Solicitations in Schools Visitors to Schools elations with Governmental Authorities Relations with Youth Serving Agencies Relations with Law Enforcement Authorities Relations with Law Enforcement Authorities IVED APR 5 2000 uFflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: KDA PUBLIC INFORMATION/SCHOOL COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM The operation of a public school system is of public interest and concern. The Board believes that effective communications with the public is a significant element of effective district operation. The Board also believes that great benefit to students and to the total community can be achieved by supporting the public's right to be informed as fully and accurately as possible through the dissemination of information regarding the school system. Therefore, the Board has established the Communications Department as a convenient, accessible, accurate information source for the community, the media, the schools, the staff, and the public at large. The general responsibilities of the Communications Department, under the supervision of the Superintendent, in the area of public information include:  Coordinate and facilitate news media relations\n Serve as the District's respondent to media inquiries\n Publish press releases, newsletters, district calendar and other official district information\n Assist schools and other departments with public information needs\nand  Respond to information requests from parents and other community residents. Additionally, schools should communicate on a regular basis with their patrons through newsletters and other forms of communication. All publications should be appropriate for patrons in terms of editorial content and format. Adopted: February 3, 2000 ECE PR 5 200D u ICEO QESEGREGATION MONITOR! a   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: KDD NEWS MEDIA RELATIONS School staff members, working with the Communications Department, will help assure a flow of information to the community. Every principal will select a school public relations coordinator who will work with the staff in the school to gather school event information and other newsworthy items. The school public relations coordinator will provide information to the Communications Department throughout the school year in order to build public understanding and support of our schools. Staff members also must consider the privacy rights of individuals and legitimate confidentiality requirements upon the school district. The Board encourages media outlets to broadcast public meetings of the Board, provided that such arrangements do not interfere with the conduct of the meeting . RECEIV R 5 2000 ufFlCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING  Adopted: February 3, 2000   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: KDE CRISIS MANAGEMENT A school crisis, resulting from many different causes, may occur at any time. The Board believes that it is essential that a Crisis Communications Plan be prepared and updated prior to such an occurrence in order for school and district officials to respond more effectively to a crisis. The Communications Department will update the Crisis Communications Plan annually. The Director of Communications will act as spokesperson during a crisis situation. The Director will maintain a list of media contacts and fact sheets about the District and schools for use in the event of a crisis. Local response agencies shall be contacted immediately after a crisis occurs. A list of key groups requiring immediate contact should be maintained in the Crisis Communications Plan. Information should be provided to the public as soon as verified facts are available. At all times the District should consider the public's right to be informed and to ensure accurate information is disseminated. RECE IE APR 5 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING  Adopted: February 3, 2000   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: KF COMMUNITY USE OF FACILITIES The Board of Education acknowledges that its properties are provided with public funds and allows use of its facilities by groups who are committed to providing services to the community. Individuals, organizations, and associations may receive permission to use school facilities for educational, recreational, social, civic, cultural, and philanthropic purposes as long as the use does not interfere with the regular program and activities of the schools. Adopted: August 26, 1999 ECEIVE SEP 3 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING  Cross Reference: Administrative Regulation KF-R   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: KFC COMMUNITY USE OF OUTDOOR FACILITIES The Board of Education acknowledges that its properties and adjacent grounds are provided with public funds and allows the use of its outdoor facilities by organizations that promote health, fitness, and recreation for the youth of the community. Individuals, organizations, and associations may receive permission to use outdoor facilities for educational, recreational, social, civic, cultural, and philanthropic purposes as long as the use does not interfere with the regular program and activities of the schools . SEP 3 1999 Adopted: August 26, 1999  Cross Reference: Administrative Regulation KF - R   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: KH SOLICITATIONS IN SCHOOLS It is the policy of the Board of Education to prohibit any solicitation or advertisement that exploits student and staff members, whether by advertising or otherwise promoting products or services, soliciting funds or information, distributing political materials, or securing participation in non-school related activities and functions. At the same time, schools should inform and assist students to learn about programs, activities or information that may be of help or service to them. To attempt a fair balance, guidelines regarding solicitations in the schools are provided in the administrative regulation, KH-R. IV SEP 3 1999 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING  Adopted: August 26, 1999   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: KH-R SOLICITATIONS IN THE SCHOOLS The following guidelines will serve as the regulations for the implementation of Board policy KH, solicitations in the schools. Permission to post bulletins will be approved by the principals if they announce a program or service for youth by a nonprofit local agency. All others will require the specific annual approval of the superintendent or a designee. With the exception of United Way, fund-raising activities in schools will not be sanctioned. This does not include PTA or school organizations' activities for fund raising. Direct sales by outside vendors to students and staff members in schools are prohibited. School offices may provide lists of vendors carrying certain items (e.g., P. E. suits) or the school may charge for miscellaneous items (e.g., pens, pencils, school Tshirts) or permit student organizations to sell products on a controlled basis . No employee of the district is permitted to use his/her position to solicit students or parents for projects, which involve expenditure of money for goods, or services for which the employee receives remuneration. Time at school must not be jeopardized by propaganda or advertising contest, by ticket sales or items not connected with the school program. SEP 3 1999 ufflCt Ot DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG  Date: August 26, 1999    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: Kl VISITORS TO SCHOOLS The Board of Education encourages visits to schools by parents and community members. In consideration of safety issues, visitors are required to register at the school office. Parents or citizens who wish to observe a classroom while school is in session are urged to arrange such visits in advance with the teacher so that class disruptions may be kept to a minimum. Principals have the authority to refuse entry onto to school grounds or buildings to persons who do not have legitimate business at the school and to require any unauthorized person or persons engaging in unacceptable conduct to leave the school premises . Adopted: August 26, 1999 Cross Reference: Administrative Regulation KI-R Board Policy IKACA D SEP 3 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: KL RELATIONS WITH GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES The Board of Education is committed to a productive, harmonious working relationship with other elected officials of local, state, and national governments. The Board will meet regularly with the Mayor and the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock to coordinate services to the citizens of Little Rock and to plan collaboratively for solutions to issues facing both Boards. The Board will work cooperatively with the Governor and members of the Arkansas Legislature to discuss issues and recommend or support legislation that will improve educational quality and the quality of life for the students and families of the Little Rock School District. The Board will communicate with Arkansas' congressional delegation and their staffs to share concerns and suggest remedies to national educational issues affecting the students and families of the Little Rock School District. Adopted: August 26, 1999 E SEP 3 1999 utflCE OF QESEGREGATION MONITORING  Cross Reference: Board Policy BJ   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: KLE RELATIONS WITH YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES Cooperation with state and local youth serving agencies is necessary to ensure that provisions are made for the planning and coordination of health care issues, custodial care of students, and the reporting/referral of suspected abuse and neglect of children served by the Little Rock School District. Relationships between health care agencies and the District will center on the provision of health information, referral, and follow-up to ensure that all students' physical and emotional health needs are being met. Relationships with youth serving agencies will focus on the appropriate sharing of information and referral so that the responsibility of district personnel designated as a \"mandated reporter\" under the law is fully discharged . IV D SEP 3 1999 . ufFICE OF uE SEGREGATION MONITORING Adopted: August 26, 1999 Legal Reference: Act 1208 of 1991  Cross Reference: Policy JHG   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: KLG RELATIONS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES The Board of Education believes that cooperation with law enforcement agencies is essential for the protection of students, for maintaining a safe environment in the District schools and for safeguarding school property. Relationships between the schools and officials of law enforcement agencies in investigative matters concerning pupils will take into consideration the respective roles of the schools and law enforcement agencies in assisting and protecting the interests of the community and ensuring the rights of all concerned. The Board also recognizes the potential enrichment that law enforcement agencies can make in the educational program and believes that through cooperative programs with the schools, students may develop healthy attitudes towards law enforcement agencies and personnel. Adopted: August 26, 1999 SEP 3 1999 OlflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING  Cross Reference: Board Policy JLDBD DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: RE: Background LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 25, 2002 Board of Education Dr. T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development Danny Fletcher, Director of Fine Arts U.S. Department of Education Proposal: Professional Development for Music Educators Program The U. S. Department of Education released a request for proposals for the Professional Development for Music Educators Program. The purpose of the program is to fund the implementation of high-quality professional development programs designed for music teachers that focus on the development, enhancement, or expansion of standards-based music education programs. Grant awards assist local educational agencies, in partnership with entities that have extensive content expertise, to develop, document, evaluate, and disseminate innovative, cohesive models of professional development. The District's application will include the 17 eligible elementary schools: Mitchell, Stephens, Baseline, Franklin, Watson, Chicot, Wilson, Rightsell, Wakefield, Cloverdale, Woodruff, Mabelvale, Fair Park, Geyer Springs, Brady, Meadowcliff and Bale. Only schools where 75 percent or more of the children served are from low-income families may receive services under this program. The District has partnered with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Department of Music, the American Orff-Schulwerk Association, and Music Workshops, Ltd. - World Music Drumming. The deadline for submission is July 19, 2002. Fiscal Impact The total three-year award request will be $1 ,200,000. The requested funds are primarily targeted for the implementation of the intensive ongoing professional development plan. Funds have been requested to enable the District to establish partnerships with outside organizations with the expertise needed to support program implementation. Local match is not required. Recommendation The staff requests approval for the submission of this grant. TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: ~onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: July 25, 2002 SUBJECT: Proposed Revision of ID-R: School Schedules Background The current regulations for Policy ID on the school day only address high school issues. Although several instructional time requirements are in practice, they are not currently written down in policy, regulations, or administrative directives. These proposed additions (the sections that are underlined) to the regulations in ID-R formalize those requirements and can, then, be more easily accessed by staff, students, and parents as questions arise. Fiscal Impact None. No new requirements are proposed-just a formalization of current practice. Recommendation That the Board of Education review and provide feedback to the staff on proposed revisions to I D-R. BAL/adg Attachment I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ID-R STUDENT SCHEDULES Grades 9-12 Students in grades 9-12 must be enrolled for four units ( eight courses) each semester in a school with an A/B block schedule or three and one-half units (seven courses) in a school with a seven-period daily schedule. One unit may be placement in a study hall or enrollment as a student assistant/monitor. The principal is authorized to modify this requirement if there are extenuating circumstances. Extenuating circumstances include the following: 1. The student is enrolled in a concurrent program at a college or university. 2. The student is enrolled in a school-sponsored work program. 3. The student has an illness that precludes full-time enrollment. 4. The student demonstrates a hardship of needing to support self and/or family. 5. The student demonstrates other reasons acceptable to the district inclusive of legal matters. Students in grade 9 are required under Act 1748 to participate in at least one hour of physical training each week (see IMP-R). Enrollment in the required one semester of Physical Education IA as a freshman will satisfy one-half of that requirement. The other semester may be satisfied by enrollment in another semester of physical education (Physical Education IB) or through participation in approved alternative activities and a signed waiver (again, see IMP-R). 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 ~e permitted, but only with the high school principal's permission: l. 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 noncredit 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 required middle school required curriculum. Courses not required by the State of Arkansas may be waived through the waiver process. (See Policy IBA, IBA-R, and IBA-R Exhibit.) Additionally, all grades 6-8 students must participate in at least one hour per week of physical tra_ining, _inc luding 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 Tirlie teguiremmtSi!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 PreK-2 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 Social Studies Music or Visual Art Instruction may be interdisciplinary\nat least 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 Physical Education At least one hour per week, including no . less than 20 minutes three times per week Time requirements that go beyond the Arkansas Accreditation Standards must be observed unless the school applies for and receives a waiver. (See IBA, IBA-R, and IBA-R Exhibit.) A sample pre-kindergarten daily schedule is attached that meets all licensing and LRSD requirements. Sample Pre-K Schedule IMP-Exhibit 2 Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 7:30- Arrival/Centers Arrival/Centers Arrival/Centers Arrival/Centers Arrival/Centers 8:00 Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Science Social Studies, Science Social Science Social Science Social Science Social Art Studies, Art Studies, Art Studies, Art Studies, Art 8:00- Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time 8:15 Explanation and Explanation and Explanation and Explanation and Explanation and Directions for today's Directions for today's Directions for today's Directions for today's Directions for today's activities activities activities activities activities 8: 15- P.E Music Library/Guidance P.E Music 8:45 8:45- Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time 9:30 Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Literacy/Language Arts Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Choice of Centers Arts Arts Arts Arts Math, Science Social Choice of Centers Choice of Centers Choice of Centers Choice of Centers Studies, Art Math, Science Social Math, Science Social Math, Science Social Math, Science Social Studies, Art Studies, Art Studies, Art Studies, Art 9:30- Outside Play: Including Outside Play: Outside Play: Outside Play: Outside Play: 10:00 Gross Motor, Art, and Including Including Including Including Dramatic Play Gross Motor, Art, and Gross Motor, Art, and Gross Motor, Art, and Gross Motor, Art, and Activities Dramatic Play Dramatic Play Dramatic Play Dramatic Play Activities Activities Activities Activities 10:00- Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time 10:45 Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Bathroom/Wash Hands Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Hands Hands Hands Hands 10:45- Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch 11:15 Social Skills Social Skills Social Skills Social Skills Social Skills Language Development Language Language Language Language Development Development Development Development I I :15- Outside Play Outside Play Outside Play Outside Play Outside Play 11:45 Gross Motor Gross Motor Gross Motor Gross Motor Gross Motor Art Art Art Art Art Dramatic Play Dramatic Play Dramatic Play Dramatic Play Dramatic Play 11:45- Language Arts/ Language Arts/ Language Arts/ Language Arts/ Language Arts/ 12:15 Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Shared Reading Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Transition Activities Bathroom/Wash Hands Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Bathroom/Wash Hands Hands Hands Hands 12: 15- Story Time/Rest Period Story Time/Rest Story Time/Rest Story Time/Rest Story Time/Rest I: 15 Period Period Period Period 1: 15- Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time Snack Time 2:15 Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Small Group Inst. Literacy/Language Arts Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Literacy/Language Choice of Centers: Arts Arts Arts Arts Including Math, Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Choice of Centers: Science, Social Studies, Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, Including Math, and Art Science, Social Science, Social Science, Social Science, Social Studies, and Art Studies, and Art Studies, and Art Studies, and Art 2:15- Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time Circle Time 2:35 Story Story Story Story Story Review of Review of Review of Review of Review of Activities/Closure Activities/Closure Activities/Closure Activities/Closure Activities/Closure Dismissal Dismissal Dismissal Dismissal Dismissal IMP-Exhibit 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 the four units of credit required each semester or eight units of credit required for the year. My proof of extenuating circumstances is either attached through signed statements or follows below: Signature of Student Signature of Parent/Guardian Date Approved/Disapproved ( circle one) Signature of Principal Date TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY~\\onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: July 25, 2002 SUBJECT: Purchase of License for Use of \"Responding to Reading Through Writing\" Background Information Annie Ross, a teacher at Jefferson Elementary School, developed during the 2000-01 and 2001-02 school years a series of writing prompts to use with her fourth-grade students in preparation for the Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examination. Because Jefferson had 95 percent of their students score at or above the \"Proficient\" level on the 2000-01 examination, District staff asked Ms. Ross not only to consider selling to the District the right to reproduce her grade 4 writing prompts, but also to create similar prompts for grades 3 and 5. She agreed to do so. Since Ms. Ross wishes to be able to sell her product to other Arkansas districts, considerable time was required during 2001-2002 to negotiate an agreement that was in compliance with state legislation and with the District's policy. That agreement is now ready. Act 1599 that became law in 2001 requires that such contracts or agreements be approved by the Board of Education through resolution and then be approved by the state. The proposed resolution and a copy of Ms. Ross' disclosure form are attached, as is a copy of the \"License Agreement.\" All these documents have been reviewed by LRSD attorneys. If the Board of Education approves the attached resolution, the next steps are as follows: 1. Secure approval of the State Board of Education, as required in recent legislation, Act 1599\n2. Reproduce the materials for all grades 3-5 teachers\nBoard of Education July 25, 2002 Page Two 3. Set up and conduct the necessary professional development for principals and teachers on how to use the materials\n4. Implement the use of the materials in all grades 3-5 classrooms (2002-03 school year). Fiscal Impact The cost of the License Agreement is $11,452.50. That cost, plus whatever cost is incurred in reproducing the materials and in providing professional development, will come from the Elementary Literacy budget for 2002-03. No additional funds are requested. Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the District's participation in the proposed License Agreement with Ms. Annie Ross, pending approval of the State Board of Education. BAL/adg Attachments RESOLUTION ACT 1599 F A. Whereas the Little Rock School District Board of Directors met in a regular, open, and properly-called board w-eeting on July 25, 2002, in the Board Room, 810 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201. Whereas seven members were present, a quorum was declared by the chair. Whereas the Board of Directors received a recommendation to adopt a resolution to enter into a contract with Annie H.. Ross, a teacher in the Little Rock School District Full disclosure of all relationships and interest as required by Act 1599 that are relevant to proposed contract: Annie H. Ross is a teacher in the Little Rock School District, and she is the sole owner of the classroom teaching tool, \"Responding to Reading through Writing,\" which the Little Rock School District proposes to use in grades 3-5 through a \"License Agreement\" (see attached). Specific facts and reasons for justifying the contract were: Annie H. Ross developed this unique product on her own time, used it in her own grade 4 classroom at Jefferson Elementary School and found it to be highly successful in preparing her students for the grade 4 Benchmark literacv examination. She is willing to share it with other LRSD grades 3-5 teachers through the attached \"License Agreement.\" The unusual circumstances necessitating the contract were: Normally, the District would have paid this teacher for her time in developing a product for districtwide use. In that case the District would have assumed ownership of the product. In this case, the teacher, nnie H. Ross wished to maintain her ownershi of the roduct and her ri ht to sell it to other school stricts-necessitatin the attached \"License A List of relevant data enclosed: A copy of the \"License Agreement\" is attached. Whereas __ board member(s) having declared an interest in the proposed contract left the meeting prior to the discussion of the contract and did not return to the meeting room until the voting on the contract had been concluded. Whereas the Board, after serious consideration, moved to approve the contract with Annie H. Ross Whereas the contract was approved with the following restrictions and/or limitations: No restrictions and/or limitations beyond those stated in the ''License Agreement\" Whereas the period of the contract shall be perpetual, as per the terms of the \"License Agreement.\". Ther efore , due to the specific reasons cited above, it is hereby declared to be the intent of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to award this contract to Annie H .. Ross. As is required by Act 1599, 2001, the contract is contingent upon approval by the Director of the Arkansas Department of Education, if required. If approval is denied, this contract approved by the Board would be null and void. -Superintendent Board President Date Date E CONTRACT DISCLOSURE FORM Name of Public Educational Entity: Little Rock School District Name of Person Disclosing Transaction: Annie H. Ross 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)  C Board Member  Administrator X D Employee of the public educational entity. 6412 Hawthorne Little Rock AR 72207 Mailing Address City State Zip Home Telephone: 501 /664-5863 Work Telephone: 501 /671-6281 - ature of transaction subject to disclosure and approval: See attached \"License Agreement.\" Estimated dollar amount of transactions with public educational entity for ENTIRE school year: $11,452.50 Check ONE: X I have a financial interest in the transaction with the public educational entity. c:\nA family member has a financial interest in the transaction with the public educational entity. r::: BOTH 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): I, Annie H. Ross, a teacher in the Little Rock School District, am proposing to license the Little Rock School District for a one-time fee of an educational classroom teaching took, \"Responding to Reading through Writing,\" which I developed on my own time. (See attached \"License Agreement.\") 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.) erhe product which I developed is unique\nnothing similar can be purchased elsewhere. It is totally aligned both with the textbooks adopted by the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas and District curriculum standards. Further, the writing prompts are modeled after the released items of the grade 4 Benchmark 1 assessment in literacy. These materials will assist grades 3-5 teachers in the Little Rock School District in preparing their students for the state literacy examinations. er am proposing this \"License Agreement\" as a method of making the product available to the Little Rock School District, yet maintaining my rights to sell the product to other school districts.  Check here if Emergency Transaction as defined by Section 9 of Act 1599 of 2001 PLEASE ATTACH ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTS YOU BELIEVE ARE NECESSARY FOR A FULL, COMPLETE, AND ACCURATE DISCLOSURE OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TRANSACTIONS. SIGNATURE: __(_ h_u_'L -(. \u0026lt;2,_. _._,,__....~.. .. ..- ---\u0026lt; '.'..__ ____D ATE: ---'6_-~\n....,,7'---0\"\"---:1_. _ CONTRACT DISCLOSURE FORM FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Date completed form received by district: July 1, 2002 9 School Official's Signature Local Board Action: 501 /447-1002 501/447-1159 Telephone Number FAX Number D APPROVED D DISAPPROVED Date PRESENTED to Board: July 25, 2002 Board President's Signature: _______ _ Required to be presented to the Director of the Department of Education for written approval: X DYES D NO Written Adopted Resolution Attached: X:o YES ONO Required Additional Documentation: Copy of signed \"License Agreement\" attached. Date Certified to ADE: ___________ _ Date Director's Written Approval received by district: Effective Date: - Please return by certified mail to: Mr. Raymond Simon, Director Arkansas Dept. of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 304A Little Rock, AR 72201 2 LICENSE AGREEME T THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT (\"Agreement\") is entered into this 25th day of July, 2002, by and between ANNIE ROSS (\"Licensor\") and the LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (\"Licensee\" or \"LRSD\"). WHEREAS, Licensor has expended time, energy, and effort to create an educational classroom teaching tool entitled \"Responding to Reading Through Writing\" (the \"Product\") that may utilized by teachers in connection with the 1999 edition of Harcourt Brace's reading textbook series entitled \"Signatures\" (the \"Series\")\nand\nWHEREAS, Licensee desires to enable Licensee's teachers to utilize the Product in Licensee's classrooms, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations and covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Licensor and Licensee agree as follows: 1. Grant of License. Licensor hereby grants to Licensee the non-exclusive right to use the Product for the Term (defined in Section 2 of this Agreement) in the Little Rock School District. Licensor understands and agrees that Licensee may make as many copies of the Product as may be reasonably necessary to distribute the Product to the teachers and students in the third, fourth, and fifth grades maintained by Licensee. Licensee understands and acknowledges, and as evidenced by its execution of this Agreement agrees, that Licensor retains ownership of the Product and specifically the right to license the use of the Product to other school districts. 2. Term. The non-exclusive license granted hereby shall be perpetual and continue until the earlier of (i) Licensor's election to terminate the Agreement following an Event of Default by Licensee or (ii) the discontinuation of the use of the Series by Licensee. 3. License Fee. In consideration for the grant of the license hereby, Licensee hereby promises to pay a one-time license fee to Licensor in the amount of $11,452.50 (the \"License Fee\"), payable in cash or other immediately available funds upon the later of (i) delivery of the Product or (ii) five (5) business days after the Licensee's receipt of all necessary approvals required in connection with the execution and delivery of this Agreement. 4. Updates and Modifications. During the Term, Licensor shall provide to Licensee, at no additional cost to Licensee, copies of all updates, modifications, successor or replacement versions of the Product, if any, created by Licensor during the Term\nprovided, however, Licensor shall have no duty or obligation to create any such update or modification. Additionally, Licensor shall provide Licencee with assistance with the implementation of the Product in the Little Rock School District at no additional cost during the first year of this Agreement. Such assistance shall include meeting with the LRSD's reading staff to discuss implementation of the Product, initial teacher training with fourth grade teachers (subject to such training not affecting Licensor's status or pay as a teacher with the LRSD), refining the Product for up to three daily meetings per year (with typing done by LRSD staff members), meeting with the LRSD reading staff once per nine (9) week quarter during the school year during the Term. Any additional assistance or support after the initial implementation of the Product shall be on terms agreed to by the parties from time to time. 5. Events of Default. This Agreement may be terminated by Licensor upon the occurrence of any one of the following events: a. Licensee fails to pay the License Fee as and when due\nor 1 C:IMY DOCUMENTSILRSD LICENSE AGREEMENTV3.WPD b. Licensee exercises or attempts to exercise any aspect or right of ownership of the Product that impairs, attempts to impair, or might impair Licensor's ownership of the product, which may include, without limitation, making unauthorized copies of the Product, selling or attempting to sell the Product, or taking any other action which if completed would indicate to a reasonable person that Licensee owned the Product. 6. Licensor's Warranty of Ownership. Licensor warrants and represents to Licensee as follows: (i) Licensor is the sole owner of the Product, free and clear of any claims or restrictions on the licensing or use thereof, (ii) Licensor has the authority and right to grant the license covered by this Agreement\nand (iii) that Licensor's ownership, licensing and use of the Product by Licensee does not (and will not) infringement on any copyright, patent, trade secret or intellectual property right any third party. Licensor's breach of any of the foregoing shall be immediate grounds for the termination of this Agreement and Licensor's obligation to refund all license fees paid by Licensee (which refund shall be in addition to Licensor's obligations for indemnification set forth m Paragraph 7 below).  7. Copyright Protection and Infringement Indemnification. Licensor shall, at Licensor's cost and expense, take all commercially reasonable action necessary to obtain, maintain, sustain, reissue, extend, defend and enforce the copyright on the Product and to keep same free from infringement by third parties. Licensor shall defend or settle, at Licensor's expense, any cause of action, claim or proceeding brought against Licensee which is based on a claim that the use of the Product infringes on any copyright, patent, trade secret or intellectual property right of any third party. Licensor further agrees to indemnify and hold Licensee harmless from any liability, claim, loss or damages arising out of the foregoing (including attorneys fees and costs incurred in defending against the same). If a claim is made that the use of the Product does infringe on the copyright, patent, trade secret or intellectual property right of any third party, Licensor shall either procure for Licensee the right to continue the use of the Product, modify it to make it not infringing or replace the Product with non-infringing product, if available. Licensee shall give Licensor written notice of any alleged infringement of the Product on the rights of a third party within three business days of the receipt of the same from party alleging such infringement. 8. Authorization. Licensee warrants and represents to Licensor that Licensee has, by due and appropriate action of the governing board of Licensee, authorized the entering into this Agreement and the payment of the Licensee Fee to Licensor by Licensee, and that the person executing this Agreement on behalf of Licensee has the power and authority to bind Licensee. Furthermore, Licensee warrants and represents that Licensee has complied with all laws, rules, and regulations necessary for Licensee to enter into this Agreement and pay to Licensor the License Fee. 9. Merger. Licensor and Licensee each warrant and represent and agree to and with one another that this Agreement contains the entire agreement between Licensor and Licensee, and that this Agreement may only be amended or modified by a writing signed by both parties. 10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be subject to and governed by the laws of the State of Arkansas. 11. Validity. This Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by the each party, constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of such party, enforceable against it in accordance with its terms, except to the extent that such enforceability may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, or other similar laws affecting the enforcement of credirors' rights, or by general principles of equity. 2 CIMY DOCUME TSILRSD LICENSE AGREEME TV3.WPD \u0026gt;  12. Assignment. Neither this Agreement, nor any of the rights, obligations and duties hereunder, may be assigned or otherwise transferred by Licensee without the prior written consent of the Licensor. 13. Binding Effect and Benefit. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective successors and permitted assigns. Otherwise, this Agreement is not intended to create any rights for the benefit of any third party . EXECUTED THIS 25th day of July, 2002. LI~R: ~ ~d---{~ Annie Ross LICENSEE: LITT-LE- ROCK SC OOL RICT - By: /. ~ . -~~-\"~ ~ Title: Superi tendent of Scho ls, Little Rock School Dis rict 3 C: \\MY DOCUMENTS\\LRSD LICENSE AGREEMENTV3.WPD TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: 1b1onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: August 22, 2002 SUBJECT: Reports on Grades 4, 6, and 8 Benchmarks If the test results arrive in time for the staff to analyze them before the Board meeting, there will be an oral report on the Grades 4, 6, and 8 Benchmark examinations in mathematics and literacy. BAUadg DATE: August 22, 2002 TO: Board of Education Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FROM: Dr. T. Kenneth James, Superintendent PREPARED BY: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development Jane Harkey, Principal, Chicot Elementary Paula Kerr, Kindergarten Teacher, Chicot Elementary RE: Grant Proposal - Even Start Family Literacy Program Background The Arkansas Department of Education released a request for proposals for the William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Program. The purpose of this program is to help break the cycle of poverty and illiteracy by improving the opportunities of Arkansas' low-income families. This will be accomplished by providing early childhood education, adult basic education and parenting education and incorporating them into a unified family literacy program. The grant awards will allow local educational entities to implement programs that build on existing community resources, promote achievement of State student performance standards and provide families with the necessary skills to achieve their full potential as learners. Chicot Elementary, along with 12 partnering agencies, will participate in developing the Chicot A-Chief-ers Even Start program. By promoting a family-centered education program through adult education, childhood education, parenUchild interactions and parenting education, this partnership will work to increase parent involvement, family literacy, and student achievement. The grant will be submitted on August 15, 2002. Fiscal Impact The total one-year award request will be $130,016. If awarded the grant may be renewed for an additional 4-year period for a total of $520,064. The requested funds are targeted for program implementation. Local in-kind match of 10% is required. Sources for in-kind match will be provided through Title I and LRSD Adult Education. Additional new financial resources have been secured through business partnerships with J.A. Riggs, Dollar General Corporation and Wal-Mart. Recommendation The staff requests approval for the submission of this grant. TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: ~nnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction ~d Williams, Statistician, PRE DATE: September 26, 2002 SUBJECT: Revisions to the LRSD Assessment Plan Background When the Achievement Level Tests were adopted for use, effective fall 1999, the District did not have in place any criterion-referenced tests that were aligned with the standards and benchmarks. The AL Ts were recommended by the Superintendent and PRE not only to serve that need, but also the Superintendent wanted a test that would measure student growth across grade levels to be used for local accountability. The Board of Education approved in August 1999 the addition of the AL Ts to the District's Assessment Plan, and the first administration was in spring 2000. In August 2001 the Board approved a staff recommendation to eliminate the fall administration of the AL Ts and all the high school tests except grade 9 reading and language usage. These recommendations were made because (1) the fall tests were not yielding useful information\n(2) we wanted to reduce the amount of instructional time being required for testing\n(3) and we wanted to eliminate tests that were not tightly aligned with the standards and benchmarks. In the meantime, other changes compel the staff to request further modifications to the Assessment Plan, as follows: 1. Eliminate the ALT from all grade levels\n2. Select another \"objective\" test for grade 2 in English language arts and mathematics to be used for gifted/talented screening and which can also be used to measure student performance against the standards\n3. Move the SAT9 for grades 5, 7, and 10 to the spring, as per changes at the state level\nRevisions to the LRSD Assessment Plan Page Two September 26, 2002 4. Re-allocate the money saved from the ALT license, minus what will be required to purchase a new grade 2 test, to English language arts and mathematics departments to fund additional teacher training on the development, use, scoring, and application of the results of standards-aligned classroom assessments on an ongoing basis Due to the District's and each school's accountability under both the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) systems, the LRSD teachers must be able to focus on the State Benchmarks. It has been very difficult for them to align their instruction behind competing assessments at the same grade level (e.g., the AL Ts and the Benchmarks at grade 4 ). The result of too many assessments is a lack of concentrated alignment with the curriculum content standards and with the one test that matters under both ACT AAP and NCLB-the state Benchmarks. A second reason to make a change is that under NCLB, the states must now test at every grade 3-8 and at least once in grades 10-12. The ALTs would, then, be redundant since one reason we adopted them initially was to have annual testing. It is true that it will be at least two years before tests are available for grades 3, 5, and 7 from the state, but the ALT data in those two years would not be particularly helpful to teachers anyway. ADE may phase out the use of the SAT9 over the next two years since those grade levels will begin administering the Benchmarks. Saving instructional time is a third reason for this change. The AL Ts not only require lots of classroom time to administer, but also to prepare students for, to plan for the administration of, to analyze, and to produce reports. Those staff and student hours can be spent more productively. Teachers will likely save additional instructional time at grades 5, 7, and 10 since the SAT9 has been moved to the spring. In the past, many of the teachers felt they had to spend the first six weeks of each school year reviewing the students in preparation for the test. With the spring administration, the review/teaching process can be taken care of through regular instruction. A fourth reason is that in the past three years English language arts and mathematics teachers have experienced training in the design of their own tests to measure student progress against the standards. They have also learned how to write rubrics for the scoring of this work. Such teacher-made tests are much more like the items on the Benchmarks than the AL Ts (which are multiple choice only), and they give teachers more valid and more immediate information about where their students are than the AL Ts. Revisions to the LRSD Assessment Plan Page Three September 26, 2002 Finally, money is short. The annual $30,000 license fee will be better spent helping teachers become even more proficient in designing their own assessments and in learning how to collaborate in the assessment of student work against the standards. Such processes are critical if schools are going to be able to meet their \"adequate yearly progress\" requirements. Fiscal Impact None. In fact, the savings in staff hours are important in this decision. Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the four proposed modifications to the LRSD Assessment Plan. BAL/adg TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DIVISION OF EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN 100 SOUTH ARCH STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: ~?. Gary Smith, Director, Division of Exceptional Children J-Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 2002 2002-2003 Consolidation Application for Special Education and Related Services Background Information/Fiscal Impact - The consolidated VI-B Budget for this year is $3,204,930.85. FY 2003 Base Distribution $1,335,443.34\nFY 2003 Census Allocation and FY 2003 Poverty Allocation $1,869,487.51. The total allocation is $3,204,930.85, but this does not include Cash-on-Hand as of June 30, 2002, in the amount of $76,445.52. Recommendation - We recommend your approval of this 2002-2003 proposal for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education. GSS:jej Attachment .. ---\n.. PROJECT ABSTRACT Total Project Period: July 1, 2002 - June 30, 2003 Requested Funding for Project Period: $3,204,930.85 Primary Target Population and Number Served: The Project will serve students with disabilities that meet the eligibility criteria set forth by the State standards. Paragraph Description: The District will provide a free appropriate education to students with disabilities enrolled in our school district. Major Objectives: Child Find: The District will make every effort to locate and identify all children who may be disabled. Appropriate Services: A full continuum of educational services for disabled students will be provided. Implementation: To the maximum extent appropriate, disabled students shall be educated with students that are not disabled. Evaluation Strategy: The Individual Education Program {IEP) will be used to determine the appropriateness of each student's Program. TO: Board of Education LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: DATE: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools September 26, 2002 SUBJECT: First reading of CHCA: Handbooks, Manuals and Directives Background Information The District has numerous operational handbooks, manuals and directives that assist in the implementation of laws, Board policy, and administrative regulations. It is important that the contents of all handbooks/manuals and directives be developed in alignment with relevant Board policy. This policy provides guidance in the development of directives, handbooks and manuals. Fiscal Impact None Recommendation That the Board of Education approve on first reading the proposed Policy CHCA: Handbooks, Manuals and Directives.  TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: ~onnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: September 26, 2002 SUBJECT: Revision of IHBDA-R2: Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) Background Information If the Board of Education approves the elimination of the Achievement Level Tests for 2002- 03, then these regulations require revision. ALT results were formerly used to define gradelevel performance for students' in grades 3-4. Fiscal Impact 9 None. Other tests already in use will be used at these grade levels until the state implements new Benchmarks at the end of grades 3, 5, and 7. Recommendation That the Board review and provide feedback on the proposed revisions to IHBDA-R2. BAUadg LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHBDA-R2 STUDENT ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN (SAIP) In compliance with Act 999 of 1999, elementary classroom teachers and both middle and high school teachers of English language arts and mathematics will develop a Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) for each student who  is not performing on grade level (K-4)\n is not \"proficient\" on any part of the state's Benchmark examinations-primary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 6), middle (grade 8)\nand  is not scoring \"proficient\" on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, geometry, and/or algebra. Grade-level performance in grades K-2 shall be defined as performing at or above the readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment. Grade-level performance in grades 3 4 shall be defiaed as perfoHHiag at or abo,,,e the aatioaal median oa the Aehie,,,emeat Le1,\u0026lt;el Tests (ALTs) ia readiag, language, and mathematics shall be defined as performing at or above the national mean on the grade 2 standardized test. Grade-level performance at grade 4 shall be determined through teacher-made criterion-referenced tests until the state implements Benchmarks at grade 3. Schools and individual teachers are encouraged to develop plans for additional students who, in their judgment, require remediation or intervention. The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) will document a student's achievement through District-adopted assessment tools, consideration of personalized education services (special education, English-as-a-Second Language, Title I, gifted programs, etc.), identification of areas of need, specific skills to improve, strategies that will be implemented (see IHBDA-R), and progress. The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) and the student's progress toward grade-level or \"proficient\" performance must be shared with parents/guardians at the parent-teacher conferences that are regularly scheduled. If parents do not attend the scheduled parent-teacher conferences, alternate conference times may be scheduled or the form may be mailed. The principal must review and sign all SAIPs. The SAIP will be used to document parent-teacher conferences. Student Academic Improvement Plans are to be filed in the students' permanent record folders at the end of each school year or when the student withdraws from the school. TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: THROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Gary S. Smit~\u0026amp;tor, DEC ~onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction September 26, 2002 LEA Capacity Building and Improvement Activities Grant ...................................................................................... Background Information: The Arkansas Community Health and Education Foundation makes available grant dollars for non-profit agencies, including public school systems, annually. The DEC requests permission to submit the attached application for monies to be used to enhance the learning environment of 12 self-contained classrooms and to purchase software for use by all students in receiving services under IDEA. Fiscal Impact: If approved by the grant committee, the District would receive $10,000 for enhancing the learning environment of 12 elementary self-contained classes and an additional $20,000 for the purchase of software for use by all students receiving services under IDEA. No additional match dollars would need to be expended. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve submission of the grant proposal. Application for Grant AR.KANSAS COMMUNITY HEALTH AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION - DATE: September 28, 2002 Name of Organization: Division of Exceptional Children, Little Rock School District Address: 810 West Markham City/State/Zip: Little Rock, AR 72201 Name and Title of Contact Person: Dr. G. S. Smith, Director, Division of Exceptional Children Telephone: 501-447-7420 FAX: 501-447-7421 Has your organization ever received a grant form the Arkansas Community Health and Education Foundation? NO Amount of Current Request: Project A \u0026amp; B $30,000 Are there any matching funds? YES Answer the following questions in the space provided. 1. State the specific use of the grant funds Total Project Cost: Project A\u0026amp;B - $180,200 The Division of Exceptional Children of the Little Rock School District receives federal funding for materials and services to serve students with disabilities at the rate of just over $500 per student annually under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Although lawmakers committed to fund programs under IDEA at the rate of 40% in 1972 at the first passage of the law, current funding is at about 10% of the actual cost to implement IDEA. The Little Rock School District commits local and state A dollars to assure required services, equipment, and materials are provided. However, the current level of W federal, state and local funding prevents the purchase of materials and equipment that may not necessarily be required to implement a student's Individual Education Plan but certainly would enhance the learning climate and reinforcement of skills through technology. The request for Grant Funds is for two inter linked projects that together will enhance the learning environment and academic progress of students who receive services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Project A - The Little Rock School District expends an average of $2100 to furnish a typical elementary classroom. The 26 special education classrooms that serve elementary students with disabilities in a selfcontained setting receive this same average expenditure but often attempt to augment the learning environment with furnishings and materials purchased personally by the teacher. An audit of these classrooms identified 12 classes as being especially at need in this area. Many of these items include audio equipment, activity centers, interactive electronic screens, small refrigerators for snacks, etc. At this time funds are not available for the purchase of these materials. Purchasing them would help enhance the learning environment and climate of these classes. The Division of Exceptional Children of the Little Rock School District requests consideration of grant funds totaling $10,000 to purchase teacher requested materials to enhance these classrooms. Project B - The Little Rock School District has committed to provide, at minimum, one computer for each of the 125 special education classrooms at the average cost of $1000 per computer for a total cost of $125,000. Student access to the computers will allow reinforcement of academic skills to the students. However, due to the individual needs of all of the students who receive special education, currently approved software is not always appropriate for the reinforcement of skills for many of the students. There is additional software available that would reinforce skills taught by the special education staff A members. At this time, however, the funds are not available within the budget to purchase this software. W The Division of Exceptional Children of the Little Rock School District requests consideration of grant funds to allow a $20,000 purchase of software and hardware selected by a committee of special education staff members for use in the classrooms. 2. Describe the program or project? Project A- The Division of Exceptional Children will allow 12 teachers of self-contained elementary classrooms to purchase materials and equipment from local vendors in Pulaski County. Request for purchases will require approval from their direct Special Education Supervisor and the Director of the Division of Exceptional Children. Approval will be based on the teachers' rationale of how the purchases will enhance the learning environment and climate of their classroom. All requests approved will follow established District procedures regarding purchases from local vendors and inventory of items. Any purchase made through this grant will become the property of the Division of Exceptional Children, Little Rock School District. Project B - The Division of Exceptional Children, Little Rock School District will establish a committee of special education teachers and special education supervisors to review educational software to be used in any of the 125 special education classrooms. Emphasis will be placed on selecting software that will reinforce academic, social, and functional skills to the students who receive services under IDEA. All requests for software will follow established procedures for assuring compatibility with the District's computer systems. Any software purchase made through this grant will become the property of the Division of Exceptional Children, Little Rock School District. 3. Who will benefit from this program or project? How many will be served? Project A- The 12 elementary self-contained classrooms serve an average of eight to ten students per class for a total of approximately l 00-120 students. It is anticipated that equipment and materials purchased will have multiple years of usage resulting in many more students benefiting as students enter/ move through the educational system. Project B - The Division of Exceptional Children serves over 2500 students who are identified as needing services under IDEA per year. The software purchase is anticipated to benefit at least 80% of these students per year. It is anticipated that the software will have several years of usage resulting in countless other students who enter the District in years to come to benefit. 4. Expected date this program or project will be implemented and concluded? Project initiation date is anticipated to be January 2003 and conclude by October 31, 2003. 5. Please attach the following _ Organizations current operating budget _ Program or project budget _ JRS 501 ( c )(3) nonprofit determination letter for application organization _ List of officers and directors of the organization 6. By accepting, grant recipient must submit by the following December 1 a written report setting forth the implementation of the funds and results achieved. Signature of Board President Signature of Executive Director/Superintendent - H. Baker Kurrus Dr. T. Kenneth James Typed name of Board President Typed name of Executive Director/Superintendent Application for Grant ARKANSAS COMMUNITY HEALTH AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION - DATE: September 28, 2002 Name of Organization: Division of Exceptional Children, Little Rock School District Address: 810 West Markham City/State/Zip: Little Rock, AR 72201 Name and Title of Contact Person: Dr. G. S. Smith, Director, Division of Exceptional Children Telephone: 501-447-7420 Activity Equip 12 self-contained classrooms with standard furniture and materials at an a cost of $2100 per room Enhance learning environment with supplemental equipment and materials Equip all special education classes with a minimum of 1 computer Purchase software equipment for use in classrooms that serve students under IDEA TOTAL FAX: 501-447-7421 BUDGET PAGE Grant dollars District Match $0 $25,200 $10,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $20,000 $0 $30,000 $150,200 Timeline Already equipped October 1, 2003 October 31, 2002 October 1, 2003 TOT AL FOR GRANT $180,200 Date: To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS October 24, 2002 Board of Directors T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Second Reading: CHCA - Handbooks, Manuals and Directives Background Information: The District has numerous operational handbooks, manuals and directives that assist in the implementation of laws, Board policies, and administrative regulations. It is important that the contents of all handbooks, manuals and directives be developed in alignment with relevant Board policy. This policy provides guidance in the development of directives, handbooks and manuals. Fiscal Impact: None Recommendations: That the Board of Education approve the proposed Policy CHCA - Handbooks, Manuals and Directives, on second reading. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: CHCA .HANDBOOKS, .MANUALS AND .DIRECTIVES Handbooks and Manuals The Board of Education recognizes the value of operational handbooks/manuals that assist in the implementation of laws, Board policy, and administrative regulations. It is essential that the contents of all handbooks/manuals conform to Board policies and regulations. It is also important that all handbooks/manuals bearing the name of the District or one of its schools be of a quality that reflects credit on the District. All handbooks/manuals will be developed in alignment with relevant Board policies and administrative regulations and will be approved by the Board/Superintendent prior to distribution. Handbooks/manuals approved by the Board of Education are official Board policy. The curriculum catalogue, personnel handbook and student handbook(s) will be approved annually by the Board. The Superintendent will decide if other handbooks/manuals need Board approval.  A copy of each handbook/manual will be filed in the Office of Planning and Development. Directives On rare occasions directives may be necessary to clarify a Board policy or administrative regulation. All directives must be approved by the appropriate associate superintendent then submitted to the Superintendent for approval. The Office of Planning and Development will distribute directives for inclusion in every Policy Book. The directive will be filed behind the related policy and regulation. Adopted: Cross Reference: CHCA-R LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: CHCA-R HANDBOOKS, MANUALS AND DIRECTIVES Procedures for handbook/manual development: 1) Obtain approval for handbook/manual development from the Superintendent or appropriate Associate Superintendent. 2) Reference all Board policies and administrative regulations for which the handbook/manual is developed. 3) Ensure alignment of handbook/manual contents with Board policies and administrative regulations. 4) Specify process for dissemination and plan for professional development on handbook/manual use. 5) Submit draft copy to Office of Planni.ng and Development for review. 6) Submit final draft copy to the appropriate Associate Superintendent for approval. 7) Submit final copy to the Superintendent for approval. 8) Upon final approval, implement dissemination plans and conduct professional development activities. Date: Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy CHCA TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: J Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent ~f'Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Approval of the Charter School Program Evaluation Background Information Dr. Linda Watson and Ms. Krishna Young, former director of the LRSD Charter School, presented to the Board of Education in June 2001 the program evaluation for the Charter School. That report was presented as information, but the Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan requires that the Board formally approve each of the program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The Charter School Program Evaluation was prepared by Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Serving on the team with him were Dr. Linda Watson, Ms. Krishna Young, and Dr. Ed Williams, members of the LRSD staff. All of the Charter School teachers, grades 3-5, participated in administering the assessments: the Achievement Level Tests at grades 3-5, the SA T9 at grade 5, and the State Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark examinations at grade 4, and the Success for All quarterly assessments in reading. The program evaluation included not only student achievement data, but also demographic data, student attendance rates, records of suspensions, student grades, and financial costs for the program. Performance data for the program evaluation were not disaggregated by race. The student body, however, was 87 percent African American. Due primarily to budget constraints, the District eliminated funding for the Charter School in summer 2002 after two years of operation, so this program has now been abandoned. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve the LRSD Charter School Program Evaluation for 2000-2001. BAL/adg Attachment TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: /taonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Early Literacy Program Evaluations Background The Board of Education approved in its 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda the Early Literacy program, which began implementation in fall 1999. During July and August 2000 the Assistant Superintendent of PRE presented to the Board drafts of this evaluation, which the Board tabled in August 2000 pending completion. That early draft was never completed and was not again submitted to the Board of Education for review and approval. During summer 2001 Dr. Bonnie Lesley, on behalf of the Early Literacy Program Evaluation team (Pat Price, Pat Busbea, Ann Freeman, Ed Williams, Ken Savage, Anita Gilliam, and Sharon Kiilsgaard) presented a completed 204-page program evaluation: Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District {1999-2000 and 2000-2001 ). This report was presented for information, but our Section 2. 7 .1 Compliance Plan now requires that all program evaluations be presented for Board acceptance and approval. Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis had served as an external consultant to the team. He read both a near-complete draft and made several suggestions for its improvement, which were incorporated into the final draft. He also read the final draft and responded. All grades K-2 teachers administered the assessments, both fall and spring, in all three years, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002. All elementary principals supervised both the fall and spring administrations of the Developmental Reading Assessment and the Observation Surveys and the Achievement Level Tests at grade 2. Central office Elementary Literacy staff conducted the training for the assessments, collected the answer documents, and participated in the analysis of data: Patricia Price, Pat Busbea, Judy Milam, Judy Teeter, Kris Huffman, and Ann Freeman. Both Dr. Ed Williams and Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Two Ken Savage assisted in the production and analysis of score reports. Anita Gilliam and Sharon Kiilsgaard assisted in checking the data tables for accuracy and in preparing the final reports. Copies of this program evaluation were provided to Mr. John Walker, to Ms. Ann Marshall at ODM, and to all elementary principals and elementary literacy staff. Executive summaries, including the program evaluation recommendations, were sent to all K-2 teachers with a cover memorandum congratulating them on their successes. The program evaluation was comprehensive, including the following:  an introduction\n a chapter on the literacy program design and its relationship to the District's Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\n a description of all of the K-2 assessments used to measure student progress\n a chapter aligning the program with national research studies on effective early literacy programs\n numerous tables displaying the data in several different ways, disaggregated by grade level and race\n an analysis of the results (based on student performance data)\n an analysis of additional data relating to achievement gap among schools and the impact of professional development on student achievement\n a chapter on findings-answers to the six research questions originally posed\n a bibliography\nand  tables of school-level data on each assessment for the two-year period. An important chapter of the program evaluation relating to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was the one on findings. Research Question 2 was as follows: Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? The discussion filled pages 81-96. The following paragraph includes the criteria that were used to determine \"effectiveness.\" To determine the effectiveness of the new program in \"improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students,\" the District used the performance results of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment. The basic criterion established in determining program effectiveness for black students was that black student achievement would have to improve and then that growth over the two-year period of the program's implementation would need to be equal to, but preferably greater than, the growth of non-black students. (p. 81) Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Three The report included a detailed analysis of all available data: The following findings based on Observation Survey, Developmental Reading Assessment, and Achievement Level Test results make it possible to conclude that the new early literacy program has so far been effective in improving and remediating the reading achievement of African American students, as well as all students. It is unusual in any District to find gains by both blacks and non-blacks over a two-year period on eight different measurements, as this study finds. Again, however, experts on program implementation advise that it takes approximately five years to determine program effectiveness, so this year 2 study at best establishes baseline and early trend data for comparisons in future years. (pp. 82-83) In this section's conclusions, the program evaluation included not only a summary of findings as they relate to the achievement gap, but also how they compare to the findings in recent national research on reading achievement among African American and white students: The results of two years of changes in the LRSD policies, programs, and procedures in grades PreK-2 indicate that both black and non-black children in the Little Rock School District are learning to read independently by grade 3 (see Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan). The findings and analyses in this report indicate trends in the opposite direction of the national research findings cited above and of scores of other similar studies. Instead of black students growing at slower rates than non-blacks, in most of the measurements the LRSD results indicate higher rates of growth of black students than non-blacks. Instead of the gap widening between grades 1 and 2 as it does in national studies, it narrows significantly in the LRSD by every one of the eight measures (five sub-tests of the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and two sub-tests of the Achievement Level Test). (p. 94) Pages 107-113 included recommendations for improvement in instruction, parent involvement, interventions, and professional development. Five schools were identified for improvement since they were the lowest performing schools in at least two of the three grades tested. Recommendations for the next program evaluation were also included. These recommendations were all considered by the program staff and by school-level staff and many were immediately implemented, as well as others identified in formative evaluations during year 3. The major recommendations made to principals for program improvement included (1) ensuring that all teachers are fully trained and are implementing the District program\nand (2) adding Reading Recovery and literacy coaches wherever possible, since both of these actions in some schools had resulted in higher achievement. Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Four At the end of 2001-02 the staff decided that another comprehensive study was not necessary so early in the program's implementation (year 3). They, therefore, presented to the Board of Education in June 2002 an update that included all the 2001- 02 scores on the Observation Surveys and Developmental Reading Assessment, along with a summary of analysis of performance, especially comparisons of African American student achievement with other students. Those findings not only confirmed the findings of the 1999-2001 study, but the results were even stronger in year 3. At the end of year 3, African American students' scores were at least 90 percent of other student scores on all five measures of the Observation Survey by the end of grade 2. In other words, the achievement gap was either closed on these measurements or almost closed, given the standard of 90 percent as an acceptable ratio. On the Developmental Reading Assessment, the most difficult of the measurements, the black to non-black ratio grew from 35 percent at the beginning of kindergarten in fall 1999 to 82 percent at the end of grade 2 in 2002. Deeper analysis also revealed that although many African American children from poverty were not learning to read in grade 1, they did successfully learn to read in grade 2, so they will most likely reach the goal of independent reading by grade 3, even though they began far behind their peers. Interestingly, the growth of other students generally exceeded African American student growth on the ORA in grade 1, but African American growth exceeded other student growth in grade 2. Copies of the program evaluation and the update are attached for Board members' review. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve, as submitted, the following:  Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001  Update on the Implementation of the PreK-2 Literacy Program, Little Rock School District, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 BAL/adg Attachments ' - TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: ~onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Program Evaluation Agenda, 2002-03 Background Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan included the following obligation: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. In response to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District implemented in 1999-2000 a new student assessment plan and proposed to the Board of Education a program evaluation agenda to include the most critical programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 and detailed in Section 5: elementary, middle, and/or high school English language arts and mathematics programs. Each year the agenda has also included the evaluation of one or more additional programs-such as the ESL program mandated by the Office for Civil Rights. Judge Wilson's \"Compliance Remedy\" A summary of the Compliance Team's interpretation of Judge Wilson's order of September 13, 2002, pertaining to the 2002-2003 programs to be evaluated is a follows: Continue to assess the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students for 2002-03 and through the first semester of 2003-04. Since the District has now eliminated all fall testing, except for certain diagnostic tests that teachers administer without 1 Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Two reporting to the district the results, this obligation to assess students ends at the end of the 2002-03 school year. The judge stated that he expected the District to \"use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated.\" Therefore, the program evaluations that will be completed as per the 2002-2003 program evaluation agenda will include all available data, including scores from previously administered fall tests, and they will all be completed by the end of the first semester of 2003-04. Each one will answer several research questions, including the one most critical to compliance, \"Was this program effective in improving and remediating the achievement of African American students?\" The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan obligated the District in Section 5 to assess students in the following programs, as follows: 5.2.1 Primary Reading/Language Arts. g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices. 5.2.2 Intermediate Reading/Language Arts e. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices. 5.2.3 Secondary Schools Reading/Language Arts f. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. 5.3.2 Mathematics Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum. The 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda outlined in this proposal includes these required components. Status of the Requirements of the 2001-02 Program Evaluation Agenda The Board's program evaluation agenda for 2001-02 was as follows:     Primary Reading/Language Arts Middle and High School Literacy K-12 Mathematics and Science (CPMSA) English as a Second Language 2 Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Three None of the four program evaluations for 2001-02 has been completed as yet due to the tardiness of our receipt of the State's Benchmark scores for literacy and mathematics in grades 4, 6, and 8. The scores arrived on Thursday, October 3, 2002. The Board received an update on the Early Literacy program evaluation in June 2002 based on the Observation Surveys and the Developmental Reading Assessment data. That update confirmed the findings of the 2000-01 report and also documented even higher achievement. The previous evaluation, along with the update, are on the Board's agenda for approval on October 24, 2002. Staff have planned to produce a brief report with data and analysis as a beginning program evaluation of the grades 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12 literacy programs with a more thorough evaluation report to come at the end of 2002-03. However, without the Benchmark scores, that report has not yet been drafted. The Board has received annual reports on assessment results for each of these programs. Comprehensive program evaluations of the grades K-5 and 6-12 literacy programs will be produced at the end of the 2002-03 school year for Board approval. The CPMSA (NSF-funded project) program evaluation (the fourth annual) will be presented at the December meeting and then will be submitted to the National Science Foundation for their review and feedback. At that time, the staff will bundle each of the previous three annual reports produced thus far, along with the NSF feedback, for the Board's formal approval of these program evaluations. The ESL report was originally scheduled for an October presentation, but we have had to reschedule since we do not yet have the Benchmark data. We anticipate being able to present that study in November. The Office for Civil Rights in Dallas has been very complimentary of our 2000-01 ESL program evaluation and has asked us to assist them in providing technical assistance to other districts on how to conduct this study. When the 2001-02 report is presented, the staff will bundle the reports for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, along with the 2001-02 report for the Board's formal approval. 2002-03 Proposed Program Evaluation Agenda The District will provide for the evaluation of the following programs for 2002-03. 1. Elementary Literacy Staff will produce, with the assistance of an external expert, a comprehensive evaluation of the elementary literacy program (grades K-5) at the end of 2002-03. This study will include findings for the following four literacy programs being implemented in LRSD: Balanced Literacy (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas or ELLA at grades K-2 and Effective Literacy at grades 3 Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Four 3-5), Balanced Literacy with Reading Recovery, Success for All, and Direct Instruction. This report will be completed and presented to the Board for approval prior to the winter break in 2003. 2. Secondary Literacy Staff will produce, with the assistance of an external expert, a comprehensive evaluation of the secondary literacy program (grades 6-12) at the end of 2002-03. This study will include findings for the Reading/Writing Workshop implemented at grades 6-8 and the English I Workshop implemented in three schools at grade 9. All available data will be used in determining the effectiveness of the overall program. 2. CPMSA (K-12 Mathematics and Science) Staff will issue a final report on and evaluation of the five-year NSF-funded project for grades K-12 mathematics and science, and it will be presented to the Board for approval prior to the winter break in 2003. When NSF (external experts) provides its feedback, that report will be added to the documents submitted to the court. Fiscal Impact The District will be able to complete all the program evaluation requirements outlined in the 2002-03 program evaluation agenda through funds already budgeted, except for the cost of the external experts who will serve on each team. The costs for external consultants to complete the 2002-03 program evaluations are not yet known since the District has not yet had the opportunity to identify who they might be and to negotiate contracts. Recommendations That the Board of Education approve the 2002-03 program evaluation agenda as outlined. BAL/adg 4 TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ! PREPARED BY: bt-Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Proposed Revision of Administrative Regulations IKE-R: Promotion, Acceleration, Retention, and Administrative Placement of Students, PreK-12 Background Information Current regulations IKE-R require revision for several reasons: 1. A new regulation on retention in grades PreK-1 is included based upon study of retention data and on an analysis of ORA and OS data in grades K-2, which show that even though a student may be below grade level in reading during grade 1, a high percentage do learn to read in grade 2, making grade 1 retention unnecessary. 2. References to elementary summer school need to be eliminated since that program is not available at all schools any more. In its place are interventions throughout the school year or, for EYE schools, through inter-sessions. 3. References to credit-by-examination at the middle school need to be eliminated since that option is no longer available at middle school. 4. More elaboration was needed on acceleration to guide school-based decisions. 5. References to performance on the State Benchmarks need to be added due to the increasing importance of this measurement. 6. Changes in the number of credits required for promotion at the high school level are necessary due to enhanced graduation requirements. Fiscal Impact None Recommendation That the Board review and provide feedback to the staff on the proposed revisions to IKE-R. BAUadg Attachment LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKE-R STUDENT PROMOTlOH A~ID RETENTIO~t, PreK 12 PROMOTION, ACCELERATION, RETENTION, AND ADMINISTRATIVE PLACEMENT OF STUDENTS, PreK-12 Purpose The purpose of the following regulations is to provide guidelines for teachers and campus-level administrators to use in making decisions relating to promotion, acceleration, tffil retention, and administrative placement of students from one grade to the next. Elementary School, PreK-1 Students in grades PreK-1 are not to be retained except under extenuating circumstances where the best interests of the child would clearly be served, according to multiple criteria and in consultation with the parent(s)/guardian(s). Extenuating circumstances include, but are not limited to, excessive absences, lack of participation in prekindergarten, fetal alcohol syndrome, fetal drug addiction, and developmental delays. Elementarv School, PreK 5 Grades 2-5 1. Promotion of a student from one elementary grade to the next shall be determined by the degree to which the student has achieved the District's curriculum standards identified in the Core Curriculum at each grade level as evidenced by multiple criteria (e.g., criterion-referenced tests, state examinations in literacy and mathematics, normreferenced tests, grades, teacher/counselor predictions of success at the next level, extenuating circumstances, etc.). (e.g., nefffi referenced tests, state and leeal eriterien referenced tests, grades, teaeher/emmseler predietiens ef sueeess at the nmct le'\u0026gt;'el, eKteRuating eireumstanees, ete.). Achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics are of primary importance. 2. The decision to accelerate (double-promote) a student shall be made, again based on multiple criteria, and in consultation with the parent(s)/guardian(s), classroom teacher(s), principal(s), counselor, staff from the gifted/talented office, and other appropriate curriculum and assessment staff. administratiYe perserarnl. Students not performing at or above the proficient level on the most recent standards-based assessments or the state Benchmarks in both English language arts and mathematics are not generallv candidates for acceleration. A four-year-old is not permitted to skip pre-kindergarten and be \"double-promoted\" to kindergarten since he/she would not be old enough to enter kindergarten under state law. 3. The decision to retain a student in a grade shall be made based on multiple criteria (see #1 above) and in consultation with the parent(s)/guardian(s), classroom teacher(s), and principal. Achievement in English language arts and mathematics are of primary importance, and for that reason, students performing at the Below Basic level on state assessments. if substantiated by other criteria. may be considered for retention. even though scores mav be reported during the summer after the end of the school year. A. Prior to a decision to retain, the child's Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) must be implemented fully by the teacher. and Progress Reports must be sent home each quarter of failing work so that parents are alerted. In addition, substfilltial contact (at least two attempts) with parents must be documented (such as the Parent-Teacher Conference Form and/or the parent-teacher conference relating to the SAIP) to show efforts made to prevent student failure or retention through intervention and remediation. B. Parents/guardians must be notified by the end of the third nine weeks grading period and given reasons for the probable retention of the student. This notification (or attempts to encourage the parent's participation) must include a good-faith effort to include the parent(s)/guardian(s) in a parent-teacher conference and must be documented in writing (or attempts to eneoumge the parent's partieipatioa). Parents/guardians must be advised of all available programs and services provided by the District to support the child's remediation. The documentation must include the date, persons involved, and results of the conference, and it must be placed on file. C. The parents of a retained student must be ad,ised that the stl:ldent ml:lst attend summer school 11:Rd make progi:ess or be retained. 4. If a student will reach age eleven ( 11) before June 1 of his/her HHhe third grade year. he/she may be administratively assigned from grade 2 to grade 4. If a student will reach 0f age thirteen (13) by June 1 of his/her HHhe fifth grade year, he/she may be administratively assigned from grade 4 to grade 6. to the neJct gi:ade. Middle School. 6-8 The following regulations are established to guide decision-making at grades 6-8. Any exceptions to these regulations shall be the result of a collaborative decision involving the classroom teacher(s). the counselor. the principal, parent(s)/guardian(s). and other appropriate staff. Such an exception must be based on multiple criteria. including criterion-referenced tests. grades. teacher/counselor predictions of success at the next level. extenuating circumstances. etc. An exception can be made for those students who can successfully earn credit for a failed course through a District-approved correspondence or distance-learning program or through summer school. 1. To be promoted from the sixth grade to the seventh grade, from the seventh grade to the eighth grade, or from the eighth grade to the ninth grade, a student must earn a passing grade (D) or~ above in both English (reading/writing workshop) and mathematics and in either science or social studies. Grades shall reflect the degree to which the student has achieved the core curriculum standards appropriate for the grade level. 2. Although a student may be accelerated (double-promoted) from grade 4 to grade 6, acceleration is rarely an option in middle school and should only be considered under very extenuating circumstances. Any decision to accelerate shall be based on multiple criteria (e.g .. criterion-referenced tests. examinations in literacy and mathematics. norm-referenced tests. grades. teacher/counselor predictions of success at the next level, extenuating circumstances. etc.) Students not performing at or above the proficient level on the most recent standards-based assessments or the state Benchmarks in both English language arts and mathematics are not generally candidates for acceleration. 3. The parent(s)/guardian(s) of any student likely to be retained or reqHiree to aHene stunrner seh.ool for prom.otioH must be notified through teacher-parent conferences relating to the Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) and quarterly Progress Reports of the student's low performance. (Schools are encouraged to develop a contract with students and their parents to improve academic achievement as a part of this process.) In addition. parent(s)/guardian(s) must be notified in writing bv the end of the third nine-weeks grading period of the likelihood ofretention and the need to attend summer school to make up failing grades. srneeHt's stB:ttis Ho later th.fill the eHe of the th.ire HiBe 1Neelcs _gi'aeiHg perioe. A. A student who fails either English (reading/writing workshop) or mathematics and one other core curriculum course may be promoted to the next grade level if he/she earns a passing grade or above in summer school in either the English or mathematics course that was failed. Another option for earning ereeit for a feilee eotirse is through. the ereeit by e~camiHatioH pro_gi'am (effeeti1v1e, seh.ool year 1999 2000). At the discretion of school officials, the student may be required to retake the other failed course or enroll in an extra remedial course during the next school year instead of allowing an elective course. B. A student who fails both English (Reading/Writing Workshop) and mathematics must attend the full-day summer school program and earn passing grades in both subjects in order to be promoted. or h.e/sh.e m.Hst eern oHe ereeit through. th.e ereeit b1 examiHatioH pro_gi'am. (Creeit by e~camiHatioH a1,\u0026lt;ailable iH 1999 2000.) C. A student who fails both English (Reading/Writing Workshop) and mathematics and either science or social studies must attend the full-day summer school program and earn passing grades in both English and mathematics in order to be promoted. D. A student who fails either English (Reading/Writing Workshop) or mathematics and both science and social studies must attend the full-dav summer school program and earn passing grades in English/mathematics and in science/ social studies-two of the three failed courses. 1111- ... . D. A student who fails three core curriculwn courses is eligible for promotion only if he/she attends the full da\n summer sehool program fil1Q is able successfully to earn one course credit through the credit b\n' e,camination program. (Credit by e,mmination aailable in 1999 2000.) D. A student who fails all four core curriculum areas is not eligible for promotion and must be retained. E. A student 1,1,rho does not earn promotion the seeond\n'ear at a grade le1,rel in grades 6 and 7 rnay be adrninistratiYely placed at the neJct grade leYel. F. A student who performs at the Below Basic level on the most recent criterionreferenced assessments or state Benchmarks in both literacy and mathematics may be retained if other student performance data verifv the low performance and if scores are received bv the school before the beginning of the next school year. 4. A student who does not earn promotion the second year at a grade level in grades 6 or 7 maybe administratively assigned at the next grade level. A student who will be age sixteen (16) during grade 8 before June l of his/her eighth-grade year and who has not successfully completed the requirements for grade 8 may be administratively assigned to an alternative education program if program eligibility and placement criteria are met. 7. Any e,ceeption to these regulations shall be the result of a eollaboratiYe decision ino1Ying the counselor, classroom teacher(s), prineipal, parent(s)/ guardian(s), and the appropriate curriculum and adrninistratiYe personRel. Such Elil exception must be based on rnultiple criteria, including the student's norrn reference test scores, local and state criterion referenced test scores, grades, age, eJctenuating eircumstaHces, aHd the student's probable success at the nc,ct lc1,rel. An exception CElil be rnade for those students v,rho can successfully earn credit fer a failed course through the credit ay examination program. High School, 9-12 1. Effective for the classes of 2001-02 and 2002-03 fall 1999, a high school student must earn a minimum of six (6) units of credit each year in order to be classified at the next grade level, as follows: Sophomore (grade 10) 6 units Junior (grade 11) 12 units Senior (grade 12) 18 units. Effective for the classes of 2003-04 and beyond, a high school student must earn a minimum of 6  units of credit each year in order to be promoted to the next grade level, as follows: Sophomore (grade 10) 6  units Junior (grade 11) Senior (grade 12) 13 units 19  units 2. Over-age and credit-deficient students may be refeffed to administratively assigned to an alternative education program if program eligibility and placement criteria are met. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKE-R PROMOTION, ACCELERATION, RETENTION, AND ADMINISTRATIVE PLACEMENT OF STUDENTS, PreK-12 Purpose The purpose of the following regulations is to provide guidelines for teachers and campus-level administrators to use in making decisions relating to promotion, acceleration, retention, and administrative placement of students from one grade to the next. Elementary School, PreK-1 Students in grades PreK-1 are not to be retained except under extenuating circumstances where the best interests of the child would clearly be served, according to multiple criteria and in consultation with the parent(s)/guardian(s). Extenuating circumstances include, but are not limited to, excessive absences, lack of participation in prekindergarten, fetal alcohol syndrome, fetal drug addiction, and developmental delays. Elementary School, Grades 2-5 1. Promotion of a student from one elementary grade to the next shall be determined by the degree to which the student has achieved the District's curriculum standards identified in the Core Curriculum at each grade level as evidenced by multiple criteria (e.g., criterion-referenced tests, state examinations in literacy and mathematics, normreferenced tests, grades, teacher/counselor predictions of success at the next level, extenuating circumstances, etc.). Achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics are of primary importance. 2. The decision to accelerate (double-promote) a student shall be made, again based on multiple criteria, and in consultation with the parent(s)/guardian(s), classroom teacher(s), principal(s), counselor, staff from the gifted/talented office, and other appropriate curriculum and assessment staff. Students not performing at or above the proficient level on the most recent standards-based assessments or the state Benchmarks in both English language arts and mathematics are not generally candidates for acceleration. A four-year-old is not permitted to skip pre-kindergarten and be \"double-promoted\" to kindergarten since he/she would not be old enough to enter kindergarten under state law. 3. The decision to retain a student in a grade shall be made based on multiple criteria (see #1 above) and in consultation with the parent(s)/guardian(s), classroom teacher(s), and principal. Achievement in English language arts and mathematics are of primary importance, and for that reason, students performing at the Below Basic level on state assessments, if substantiated by other criteria, may be considered for retention, even though scores may be reported during the summer after the end of the school year. A. Prior to a decision to retain, the child's Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) must be implemented fully by the teacher, and Progress Reports must be sent home each quarter of failing work so that parents are alerted. In addition, contact (at least two attempts) with parents must be documented (such as the Parent-Teacher Conference Form and/or the parent-teacher conference relating to the SAIP) to show efforts made to prevent student failure or retention through intervention and remediation. B. Parents/guardians must be notified by the end of the third nine weeks grading period and given reasons for the probable retention of the student. This notification (or attempts to encourage the parent's participation) must include a good-faith effort to include the parent(s)/guardian(s) in a parent-teacher conference and must be documented in writing. Parents/guardians must be advised of all available programs and services provided by the District to support the child's remediation. The documentation must include the date, persons involved, and results of the conference, and it must be placed on file. 4. If a student will reach age eleven (11) before June 1 of his/her third grade year, he/she may be administratively assigned from grade 2 to grade 4. If a student will reach 0f age thirteen (13) by June 1 of his/her fifth grade year, he/she may be administratively assigned from grade 4 to grade 6. Middle School, Grades 6-8 The following regulations are established to guide decision-making at grades 6-8. Any exceptions to these regulations shall be the result of a collaborative decision involving the classroom teacher(s), the counselor, the principal, parent(s)/guardian(s), and other appropriate staff. Such an exception must be based on multiple criteria, including criterion-referenced tests, grades, teacher/counselor predictions of success at the next level, extenuating circumstances, etc. An exception can be made for those students who can successfully earn credit for a failed course through a District-approved correspondence or distance-learning program or through summer school. 1. To be promoted from the sixth grade to the seventh grade, from the seventh grade to the eighth grade, or from the eighth grade to the ninth grade, a student must earn a passing grade (D) or above in both English (reading/writing workshop) and mathematics and in either science or social studies. Grades shall reflect the degree to which the student has achieved the core curriculum standards appropriate for the grade level. 2. Although a student may be accelerated ( double-promoted) from grade 4 to grade 6, acceleration is rarely an option in middle school and should only be considered under very extenuating circumstances. Any decision to accelerate shall be based on multiple criteria (e.g., criterion-referenced tests, examinations in literacy and mathematics, norm-referenced tests, grades, teacher/counselor predictions of success at the next level, extenuating circumstances, etc.) Students not performing at or above the proficient level on the most recent standards-based assessments or the state Benchmarks in both English language arts and mathematics are not generally candidates for acceleration. 3. The parent(s)/guardian(s) of any student likely to be retained must be notified through teacher-parent conferences relating to the Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) and quarterly Progress Reports of the student's low performance. (Schools are encouraged to develop a contract with students and their parents to improve academic achievement as a part of this process.) In addition, parent(s)/guardian(s) must be notified in writing by the end of the third nine-weeks grading period of the likelihood of retention and the need to attend summer school to make up failing grades. A. A student who fails either English (reading/writing workshop) or mathematics and one other core curriculum course may be promoted to the next grade level if he/she earns a passing grade or above in summer school in either the English or mathematics course that was failed. At the discretion of school officials, the student may be required to retake the other failed course or enroll in an extra remedial course_during the next school year instead of allowing an elective course. B. A student who fails both English (Reading/Writing Workshop) and mathematics must attend the full-day summer school program and earn passing grades in both subjects in order to be promoted. C. A student who fails both English (Reading/Writing Workshop) and mathematics and either science or social studies must attend the full-day summer school program and earn passing grades in both English and mathematics in order to be promoted. D. A student who fails either English (Reading/Writing Workshop) or mathematics and both science and social studies must attend the full-day summer school program and earn passing grades in English/mathematics and in science/ social studies-two of the three failed courses. E. A student who fails all four core curriculum areas is not eligible for promotion and must be retained. F. A student who performs at the Below Basic level on the most recent criterionreferenced assessments or state Benchmarks in both literacy and mathematics may be retained if other student performance data verify the low performance and if scores are received by the school before the beginning of the next school year. 4. A student who does not earn promotion the second year at a grade level in grades 6 or 7 maybe administratively assigned at the next grade level. A student who will be age sixteen (16) before June 1 of his/her eighth-grade year and who has not successfully completed the requirements for grade 8 may be administratively assigned to an alternative education program if program eligibility and placement criteria are met. High School, 9-12 1. Effective for the classes of2001-02 and 2002-03, a high school student must earn a minimum of six (6) units of credit each year in order to be classified at the next grade level, as follows: Sophomore (grade 10) Junior (grade 11) Senior (grade 12) 6 units 12 units 18 units. Effective for the classes of 2003-04 and beyond, a high school student must earn a minimum of 6  units of credit each year in order to be promoted to the next grade level, as follows: Sophomore (grade 10) Junior (grade 11) Senior (grade 12) 6  units 13 units 19  units 2. Over-age and credit-deficient students may be administratively assigned to an alternative education program if program eligibility and placement criteria are met. 7\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":53,"next_page":54,"prev_page":52,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":624,"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}}]}}