Arkansas Aviation Historical Society banquet programs (1992), Legal documents, correspondence, newspaper clippings, notes
This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.
S /J// . mwd /Ill ~ Exhibit No. 67: Ll230-90 Program Evaluation for Lyceum Scholars Program at Philander Smith College. 12:02 PM I I Alternative Learning Environment (ALE) Program Evaluation Two year comparison: Lyceum Scholar's High School (LSHS) September 22, 2000 Dr. Ed R. Williams Little Rock School District (LRSD) Department of Planning Research and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2125 Draft Summary Performance and achievement data, plus year-end survey data from students, parents, staff, and building principals for the Lyceum Scholar's High School (LSHS) Program at Philander Smith were collected and analyzed for SY 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. The LSHS program is a computer-based instructional learning environment using PLATO software. Program goals are to improve student achievement, grade level perfonnance, and attendance via an alternative learning environment (ALE). Student perfonnance data indicates a reduction in school absenteeism, but an increase in days suspended. Student achievement data is mixed. LSHS students, as measured by the PLATO software, are performing at grade level. Also, LSHS students outperform the LRSD average scores in math Achievement Level Test (ALT) scores. However, these students are below the LRSD average in reading and language usage ALT scores. SYl 999-2000 survey results indicate that student satisfaction increased over the SYI 998-1999 results. However, students, parents, and staff continue to be dissatisfied with food service. Also, both students and parents would like more classroom time and less time on PLATO. Students and parents are also dissatisfied with the morning bus arrival times. Staff would like more support in instructional delivery. Principals of feeder schools would like more data and information about the program and LSHS staff should provide LSHS information to all LRSD principals. It is recommended for SY2000-2001 that the meal situation be resolved, that a ibnasltarnucceti obne ael sstaubplpioshrte. d between classroom and PLATO time, and that teachers receive more 12:02 PM 2 Draft Introduction The Lyceum Scholar's High School (LSHS), grades 9 and 10, is one of three ALE programs in the LRSD. The other two programs are at Pennick Boys club, a middle level program, and Camp Pfeifer, an elementary program. The LSHS is designed for students with a high potential for success yet for several reasons are not progressing satisfactorily in the regular school setting. Students appropriate for the LSHS demonstrate excessive absences and need individualized teaching and instruction. The LSHS is designed to provide a success-oriented environment for students who would not nonnally obtain success. The LSHS offers a small class setting with an emphasis on core subjects. The curriculum is computer-based using PLATO software. Using this software, students can accelerate to a higher-grade level. The LSHS program is designed for completion of the entire secondary ocur rrreitcuurlnu mto. thAet rtehgeu claorm apslseigtinoend o sfc ehaocohl. academic year, a student may reapply to remain at LSHS LSHS admission requirements are 1. completing an application, 2. volunteering and remaining at LSHS a full year, 3. ahsasviignnge da srecchoomolm, endation from the Principal or Vice-Principal at the student's 4. having no long-tenn suspensions, and 5. being reviewed by a screening committee. Purpose The purpose of this evaluation is to 1. report and compare participation, perfonnance, and perception data on students in the LSHS SY1998-1999 and SY1999-2000
2. ddaettae
r manind e the relationship between PLATO assessment scores and other achievement 3. review results and propose recommendations. Methodology The following data will be compared: Participation data Race Gender Performance data 12:02 PM 3 Draft Average number of days suspended Average number of days absent Currant grade and grade gains of all students and of students who had attended an ALE the previous year, as measured by the PLATO computer software in: Language Math Reading Average Achievement Level Test (ALT) scores in math, reading, and language usage Correlation matrix using ALT scores and current level of PLATO assessment Perception data Survey results of students, parents, teachers, and administrators Results Participation Data SY1998-1999. Thirteen (13) students participated in the program, with eight students participating the full year, and five srudents participating less than a full school year. Demographic data for the students are 77% male and 23% female, and 77% Black and 23% White. Eight students completed the survey. SY1999-2000. Twelve (12) students participated in the program. Ten of the twelve srudents had attended an ALE the previous year, 6 at Pennick and 4 at LSHS. Eight students completed the survey. Demographic data for students completing the survey are five males (62.5%) and three females (37.5%), and 57% African-American, 29% White, and 14% Other. Five of the students had been at an ALE the previous year. Performance Data Suspension and Absenteeism Data for LSHS Students SY1998-1999 Average days suspended from LSHS SY1999-2000 2.07 .58 Average days absent from LSHS 3.92 5.83 increaseWd.h ile the average number of days suspended has decreased, the average days absent has 12:02 PM 4 Draft Average Grade Level Gain for LSHS Students SY1998-1999 Program -SY1999-2000 Program Change Program Program Change entry exit entry exit Language Arts 3.51 7.7 +4.19 3.22 9.7 +6.48 Reading 4.49 8.08 +3.59 4.05 9.05 +5 Math 4.96 6.67 +1.71 5.29 9 +3.71 Students during SY1999-2000 had greater grade gains than students during SY1998-1999. Average Grade Level for Students who had attended an ALE for Two Years Average Average Change: Average Change: score: score: Spring to score: Fall to Spring Fall Fall Spring Spring 1999 1999 2000 Language Arts 6.71 2.45 -4.26 9.57 +7.12 Math 6.63 4.73 -1.9 8.92 +4.19 Reading 7.4 3.81 -3.59 8.95 +5.15 There was a sharp decline from spring of 1999 to fall of 1999 scores as measured by the PLATO software. However, gains during SY1999-2000 (Fall to Spring) resulted in average scores at least one and a half grade levels above the end of SY1998-1999 results. Average ALT Scores ALE Student ALT Average Score Middle District Average ALT Score Reading Language Middle Reading Language Level Math Level 3u, Grade Math 210 202 21 6 213 216 218 SY1999-2000 (N = 3) 9u Grade 218 208 215 213 221 223 SY1999-2000 (N = 4) Both grade levels were below the District average in reading and language, and gth grade students were below in math. Ninth grade students were above the District average in math. However, the District average was based on 30 students. 9th grade students typically take the Algebra I test 12:02 PM 5 Draft LSHS Student Scores Compared to their Assigned School: Southwest Middle School ALE Student ALT Average Score Middle Southwest Average ALT Score Reading Language Middle Reading Language Leve] (N =2) (N = 1) Level Math Math (N = 2) 8u' Grade 210 202 216 209 2 12 215 SY1999-2000 (N= 3) Students at LSHS did as well in math and language as students in their assigned school. LSHS Student Scores Compared to their Assigned School: Central, Fair, and HaJl ALE Student ALT Average Score Assigned School Average ALT Middle Score Reading Language Middle Reading Language Level (N=4) (N=4) Level Math (N = 4) Math 9"' Grade 218 208 215 240 223 224 SYI 999-2000 (N = 4) sScthuodoeln.t s at LSHS did not do as well in math, reading, and language as students in their assigned Correlation Matrix: ALT scores to Current PLATO Level at the End of SY 1999-2000 Math ALT Reading Language PLATO PLATO PLATO ALT ALT Math Reading Language Math ALT 1.00 .919* .854 .057 -.053 .277 Reading 1.00 .949 .353 .139 .173 ALT Language ALT .207 -.231 -.050 PLATO - 1.00 .885* .847* Math PLATO Reading .721 * PLATO , ~'''}~~~! Language 1.00 ~ .01 level 12:02 PM 'I 6 Draft The number of students used in this analysis was low (N = 12), which makes interpretation difficult. Data from the other two ALE programs could improve the power of the correlation design. However, while there is a significant relationship among subject scores within ALT and sPuLbAjeTcOt s creosrueslt.s , there is no significant relationship between ALT subject scores and PLATO Perception Data Program evaluation surveys were distributed to students, parents, and teachers who participated in LSHS. Surveys were also sent to school principals from whence students last attended. Survey participants were asked to respond either very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied to statements concerning: 1. application process, 2. facilities, 3. student services, 4. interactions with personnel, 5. instructional program, 6. transportation, 7. administrative support, 8. staff and student/parent interactions, and 9. food service. Additional questions were asked of the participants concerning: 1. plans after high school, 2. plans for next year, 3. would the participant recommend the program to others, 4. overall satisfaction with the program, and 5. need for program expansion. iSmpparcoev wemase naltsso. available for comments by participants concerning program changes or SY 1998-1999 student results. Students were dissatisfied with the following: 1. Student Services Health services 2. Instructional Program English instruction Social studies instruction Homework 12:02 PM 7 Draft 3. Food Service Meals provided by LRSD Meals in student center Students were satisfied with the remaining statements. Responding to the question concerning overall program satisfaction, 37.5% (N = 3) were very satisfied, 50% (N = 4) were satisfied, and 13% (N =I) were dissatisfied. Concerning plans after high school, 25% (N = 2) plan to enroll in a four-year college, 25% (N = 2) to enroll in a two-year college, 13% (N =1) to enroll in a technical training program, 25% (N = 2) were undecided, and 13% (N = 1) did not respond. Student comments are in Appendix A. SY1999-2000 student results. Students were dissatisfied with: restrooms, orientation, meals provide by LRSD, meals provided by the student center at Philander Smith College, and morning bus arrival. Students were satisfied with the remaining statements. Responding to the question concerning overall program satisfaction, 37.5% (N = 3) were very satisfied, and 62.5% (N = 5) were satisfied. Concerning plans after high school, 50% (N = 4) plan to enroll in a four-year college, 13% (N = 1) to enroll in a two-year college, 25% (N = 2) were undecided, and 13% (N= 1) did Ano).t respond. Students would like less time on PLATO and more classroom time (see Appendix SYI 998-1999 parent results. Three parents responded to the survey. Parents were very satisfied with their child's persona] academic progress and were satisfied with most of the statements. Parents were dissatisfied with: classroom environment, field trips, health services, meals in the student center, meals provided by LRSD, staff providing nurture and support to students, and social studies instruction. Half of the responding parents had volunteered at the school and wished for their child to return to the LSHS program next year. Most parents, 67%, were satisfied with the overall program and half of the responding parents would recommend the LSHS program to others. Parents were concerned about the quality of the food and interaction of students with teachers. Parent comments are in Appendix C. 12:02 PM 8 Draft dissatisfSieYd1 w99it9h-:2 000 parent results. Ten parents responded to the survey. Parents were meals provided by LRSD, meals provided by the student center at Philander Smith College, and morning bus arrival. Parents were satisfied with the remaining statements. Less than half ( 40%) of the responding parents had volunteered at the school. 70% wished for their child to return to the LSHS program next year. All of the parents were satisfied with the overall program and 90% of parents would recommend the LSHS program to others. Parents would like to see less time using PLATO and more classroom time (see Appendix B). SYl 998-1999 staff results. Staff (N= 2) were both satisfied with: student selection process, qualifications of staff, relationships with college personnel, mentoring/counseling, expectations for student behavior, support for disciplinary actions, service of Lyceum students in the student center, bus arrival and departure times, parent/staff interactions, and classrooms. Both of the staff were dissatisfied with: support in instructional tutoring, administration of food service, distribution of LRSD prepared meals, delivery ofLRSD prepared meals, and janitorial services. One of the staff recommend that the program continue next year and that the program be expanded to add another grade level. Also, half of the responding teachers/staff wished to return to the program next year. Recommendations for staff development and program change include Athpep neeneddi xf oCr . college level classes, security, and staff selection. Additional comments are in SY1999-2000 staff results. Staff (N = 3) were dissatisfied with support in instructional delivery, meals provided by the LRSD, and meals provided by the student center at Philander Smith College. 12:02 PM \ 9 Draft Staff were satisfied with the remaining statements. All of the staff recommended that the program continue, recommended that another grade level be added, wish to return to the program next year, and were satisfied with the program. Staff would like more space and teachers (see Appendix C). SY 1998-I 999 principal results. Principals (N ~ 2) did not have any recommendations for change and were satisfied with most of the statements. However, they were very satisfied with the qualifications of staff, computer-assisted instruction, and instructional methodology. SY 1999-2000 principal results. Principals (N== 3) were satisfied with all the Dst)a.t ements. Principals would like more data and infonnation about the program (see Appendix Discussion While suspensions were down from S YJ 998-1999 to SY l 999-2000, the average number of days absent was higher. PLATO gains and current levels for S YI 999-2000 are higher than the S YJ 998-I 999 results. However, these increased gains barely offset the sharp decrease in PLATO levels from spring to fall. Student's OUlperfonned the LRSD average in math ALT scores, but are below the LRSD average in reading and math. LSHS eighth grade students performed better in math and language, but 9 grade students performed below in math, reading, and language as compared to their assigned school peers on ALT scores. Due to a low sample size, it is difficult to interpret the relationship between ALT scores and PLATO levels. Students, parents, and teachern continue to register theIT dissatisfaction with the food service. Students and parents are also dissatisfied with the morning bus arrival. Staff would like more instructional LsuSpHpSo.r t and improved janitorial services. Principals would like more data and information about 12:02 PM IO Draft Recommendations 1. Resolve the dissatisfaction with the food service. 2. Improve the absenteeism rate. 3. Provide teachers with instructional support. 4. Determine and commit to a balance between PLATO and classroom time. 5. Resolve the dissatisfaction by students and parents with AM bus arrival. 6. Inform principals about the results of LSHS. 12:02PM Draft Appendix A Student Comments: S1998-1999 Better food next year. For the food to change & we have better lunches Student Comments: SY1999-2000 Less PLATO, more class time (This comment was made on fou,- surveys J Lunches 12:02 PM 12 Draft Appendix B Parent Comments: SY1998-1999 Have vou volunteered at school this year? II 'dw orautlhde nr onto mt. ind volunteering to end the Lyceum High School. As for any other reason Recommended changes: oTuhtasti dthe et hree mclaaisnsirnogo mstu. dents attending the Lyceum High School have a privilege to eat Recommended program changes: Just one teacher we has a problem with my daughter said she picked at her all the time. This teacher should have tried to find out why my daughter was feeling the way she was. And try to talk to her on her level (teen-ager), than just calling her a problem child. It atargkuesm tewnota ttoiv he.a ve a argument. My daughter & the teacher sounds like there both are wThhaetr et hhee pbreinlocnipgasl. would follow through on promises an my child to attend regular school The lunches that they are fed are terrible. Parent Comments: SY1999-2000 Less PLATO and more class time. (This comment was made on five surveys) 12:02PM 13 Draft 13 Appendix C Staff Comments: SY1998-1999 Recommendations for staff development: Let us take classes that count on the college level. Some of us just came out of college and can work a computer better than those who do staff development. Recommended program chanizes: eed security guard. Administrator on site everyday for program. Better selection, the process of selecting certifled teachers. For people over the program to visit more often and talk with the children. More visits among the Advisory Committee. Staff Comments: SY1999-2000 I would like to see more class space in the future. I haven't been teaching in the program long enough to make any recommendations. eed security officers and additional teachers. 12:02 PM ...I 14 Draft 14 12:02 PM Appendix D None Principal Conunents: SYI998-1999 Principal Comments: SYJ999-2000 You might consider providing us with more data about the program. You might consider yseeanrd. ing a representative to a faculty meeting for a short presentation early in the school 15 Draft 15 PROGRAM EVALUATION Philander Smith College/ LRSD Lyceum Scholars High School 1999 - 2000 This evaluation report is divided into two sections. Section I presents the results of four surveys that were completed by the following individuals: A. Students in the Lyceum Program B. Parents of Lyceum students C. Lyceum staff members D. LRSD administrators with students emolled in the Lyceum program Section II is a statistical analysis of student academic progress for the year and a report comparing student attendance and suspensions before entrance to the program and this year. KEY FINDINGS 1. The number of individuals completing each of the evaluation surveys were: Student Survey - 8 Parent Survey - 10 Staff Survey - 3 Administrative Survey - 3 2. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Application Process. 3. Only 50% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Restroom Facilities. 4. 100% of the students were satisfied or very satisfied with the Student Services offered. 5. Students regarded their Interactions with College Personnel as very favorable. 6. The Instructional Program received high marks from the students. 7. 100% of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with Staff/Student Interactions/Communications. 8. 100% of the students were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the Meals Provided by LRSD. 9. 62.5% of the students were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied by the Meals in the Student Center. 10. 100% of the students were satisfied or very satisfied with the Overall Program. 11. With the exception of the survey item dealing with Meals Provided by LRSD, all of the parent responses were either satisfied or very satisfied. 12. The Staff Survey reflected complete satisfaction with the program. 13. LRSD school administrators were also highly complimentary of the program. 14. Lyceum students showed an 85% reduction in school absences, and a 30% reduction in the number of suspensions, when compared to their pre-Lyceum assignments. 15. Lyceum students recorded the following average grade level increases over the course of this school year: Language Arts - 6.48 Math- 3.71 Reading-5 Valid PROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD LYCEUM STUDENT SURVEY 1999 - 2000 GRADE Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 9.00 6 75.0 75.0 75.0 10.00 2 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Gender Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 5 62.5 62.5 62.5 Female 3 37.5 37.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Race Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent African American 4 50.0 57.1 57.1 Caucasian 2 25.0 28.6 85.7 Other 1 12.5 14.3 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Age Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 14.00 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 15.00 3 37.5 37.5 50.0 16.00 2 25.0 25.0 75.0 17.00 2 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 School attended prior to the Lyceum Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 8.00 1 12.5 16.7 16.7 725.00 5 62.5 83.3 100.0 Total 6 75.0 100.0 Missing System 2 25.0 Total 8 100.0 Written Application Fonns Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 42.9 42.9 Satisfied 3 37.5 42.9 85.7 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 14.3 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Personal Interview Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Vary Satisfied 3 37 .5 42.9 42.9 Satisfied 4 50.0 57.1 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Notification of Acceptance Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 42.9 42.9 Satisfied 4 50 .0 57.1 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Classrooms Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Restrooms Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 25.0 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 50.0 Dissatisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Very Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Student Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 42.9 . 42.9 Satisfied 3 37.5 42.9 85.7 Very Dissatisfied 1 12.5 14.3 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Media Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 25.0 28.6 28.6 Satisfied 4 50.0 57.1 85.7 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 14.3 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Computer Lab Access Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 Satisfied 7 87.5 87.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Orientation Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 62.5 Dissatisfied 3 37.5 37.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Health Services Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 75.0 Dissatisfied 2 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Career Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 25.0 Satisfied 4 50 .0 50.0 75.0 Dissatisfied 2 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Mentoring/Counseling Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 25 .0 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 87.5 Very Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Case Management Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Faculty Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 62.5 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Support Personnel Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50 .0 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Security Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 100.0 Total 8 ~00.0 100.0 Administration Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Classroom Management Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Instructional Materials Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Textbooks Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 62.5 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Computer-aided Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Vary Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 English Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 57.1 57.1 Satisfied 3 37.5 42.9 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Math Instruction Cumulative FreQuencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 6 75.0 75.0 75.0 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Science Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 75.0 Dissatisfied 2 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Social Studies Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 6 75.0 75.0 75.0 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Communications Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisf:ed 5 62.5 62.5 62.5 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Personal Academic Success Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12..5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Individual Attention to Needs Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Number of Courses Available Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Very Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Group Work Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Projects Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 75.0 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 87.5 Very Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Grading Procedures Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Field Trips Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 62.5 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Homework Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 7 87.5 87.5 87.5 Satisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Staff Responds in a Caring and Helpful Manner Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Staff Provides Nurturance and Support to Students Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Staff Has High Expectations for My Academic Success Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Staff Has High Expectations for My Behavior Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 6 15.0 75.0 75.0 Satisfied 1 12.5 12.5 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 My Teacher Respect Me as an Individual Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 so.a 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Dissatsified 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Support Staff Respect Me as an Individual Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Meals Provided by LRSD Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 Very Dissatisfied 7 87.5 87.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Meals in Student Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 37.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 50.0 Very Dissatisfied 4 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Bus Arrivals A.M. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 25.0 25.0 25.0 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 75.0 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 87.5 Very Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Bus Arrivals P.M. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 87.5 Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Bus Safety Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 4 50.0 50.0 87.5 Very Dissatisfied 1 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 Would you recommend the Lyceum Program to a friend? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 7 87.5 100.0 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 5 62.5 62.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0 100.0 If the Lyceum Program is available to you for the 2000-01 school year, what are your plans? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Continued Enrollment 6 75.0 85.7 85. 7 Undecided 1 12.5 14.3 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 What are your plans after graduation from high school? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Enroll in Four 4 50.0 57.1 57.1 Year College Enroll in Two 1 12.5 14.3 71.4 Year College. Undecided 2 25.0 28.6 100.0 Total 7 87.5 100.0 Missing System 1 12.5 Total 8 100.0 PROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD LYCEUM PARENT SURVEY 1999 - 2000 Gender Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 1 10.0 10.0 1-0.0 Female 9 90.0 90.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Race Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid African-America 6 60.0 60.0 60.0 Caucasian 4 40.0 40.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 School Last Attended Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 1.00 1 10.0 12.5 12.5 8.00 2 20.0 25.0 37.5 725.00 5 so.a 62.5 100.0 Total 8 80.0 100.0 Missing System 2 20.0 Total 10 100.0 Relationship to Student Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Parent 10 100.0 100.0 100.0 My Child's Grade Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 9.00 6 60.0 60.0 60.0 10.00 4 - 40.0 40.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Student Referral Procedures Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 80.0 Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 90.0 22.00 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Written Application Forms Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Personal Interview Cumulative Freauency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Notification of Acceptance Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 - Orientation Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 7 70.0 70.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Health Services Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 6 60.0 66.7 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing System 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0 Case Management Cumulative Freauency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 44.4 44.4 Satisfied 5 50.0 55.6 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing System 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0 Career Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 20.0 22.2 22.2 Satisfied 7 70.0 77.8 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing System 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0 Mentoring/Counseling Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 5 50.0 55.6 55.6 Satisfied 4 40.0 44.4 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing System 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0 Faculty Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Support Personnel Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 5 50.0 55.6 55.6 Satisfied 4 40.0 44.4 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing System 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0 Security Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 6 60.0 66.7 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing System 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0 Administration Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 20.0 22.2 22.2 Satisfied 7 70.0 77.8 100.0 Total 9 90.0 100.0 Missing System 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0 Classroom Management Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Instructional Materials Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 37.5 37.5 Satisfied 5 50.0 62.5 100.0 Total 8 80.0 100.0 Missing System 2 20.0 Total 10 100.0 Textbooks Cumulative FreQuency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 90.0 Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Computer-aided Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 English Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Math Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Science Instruction Cumulative Freouencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Social Studies Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Communications Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 20.0 20.0 20.0 Satisfied 8 80.0 80.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Your Child's Personal Academic Progress Cumulative Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 5 50.0 50.0 90.0 Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Individual Attention to Needs Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 7 70.0 70.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Number of Courses Available Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Group Work Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 20.0 20.0 20.0 Satisfied 8 80.0 80.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Classroom Environment Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 60.0 Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Grading Procedures Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 5 50.0 50.0 50.0 Satisfied 5 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Field Trips Cumulative .Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Homework Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 90.0 Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Parent/Teacher Conferences Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 7 70.0 70.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Responsiveness of Teachers to Student Needs Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 20.0 20.0 20.0 Satisfied 8 80.0 80.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Nurturance and Support Provided students Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied . 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 90.0 Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Staff Respects Me as an Individual Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Staff Responds in a Caring and Helpful Manner Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 7 70.0 70.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Meals Provided by LRSD Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 10.0 10.0 10.0 Satisfied 2 20.0 20.0 30.0 Dissatisfied 5 50.0 50.0 80.0 Very Dissatisfied 2 20.0 20.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Meals in Student Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 5 50.0 50.0 80.0 Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 90.0 Very Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Bus Arrival A.M. Cumulative Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Vary Satisfied 3 30.0 30.0 30.0 Satisfied 5 50.0 50.0 80.0 Dissatisfied 2 20.0 20.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Bus Arrival P.M. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 5 50.0 50.0 90.0 Dissatisfied 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 ( Bus Safety Cumulative Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 Satisfied 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Have you volunteered at school this year? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 No 6 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Do you wish for your son/daughter to return to the Lyceum ALE Program for the 2000-01 school year? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 7 70.0 70.0 70.0 No 3 30.0 30.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Would you recommend the Lyceum ALE Program to others? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 9 90.0 90.0 90.0 No 1 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied - 6 60.0 60.0 60.0 Satisfied 4 40.0 40.0 100.0 Total 10 100.0 100.0 Valid Valid Valid Missing Total Valid Valid Valid , PROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD ~ YCEUM STAFF SURVEY 1999 - 2000 Student Selection Process Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Dissatisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Curriculum Offered Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Expected Outcomes Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 1 33.3 100.0 100.0 System 2 66.7 3 100.0 Selection of Staff Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Qualifications of Staff Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Teaching Perfonnance Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Relationships with College Personnel Cumulative FFequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Orientation Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Health Services Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Career Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Mentoring/Counseling Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 2 66.7 100.0 100.0 Missing System 1 33.3 Total 3 100.0 Case Management Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Preparation/Planning Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 l ' Support in Instructional Delivery Cumulative Freouency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Dissatisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 lntructional Materials Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Program Evaluation Design Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Professional Evaluation Process Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33 .3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Expectations for Student Behavior Cumulative Freouencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Management of Student Behavior Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Support for Disciplinary Actions Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 66.7 100.0 100.0 Missing System 1 33.3 Total 3 100.0 Administration of Food Service Program Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Dissatsified 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Delivery of LRSD Prepared Meals Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Very Dissatisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Distribution of LRSD Prepared Meals Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Dissatisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Service of Lyceum Students in the Student Center Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Bus Arrival Times A.M. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Bus Arrival Times P.M. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 From Ale Administrator Cumulative (_ Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 From LRSD Administrator Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Lyceum Advisory Committee Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Parent/Staff Interactions Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Parent Involvement Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Parental Support Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Summer Teacher Training Cumulative Frequencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 2 66.7 100.0 100.0 Missing System 1 33.3 Total 3 100.0 Behavior Management Training Cumulative Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Ongoing Staff Development Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Dissatisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Plato Training Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Classrooms Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 66.7 Dissatisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Library Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Computer Lab Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Janitorial Services Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Comfortability Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Do you recommend that the Lyceum Program continue for the 2000-01 school year? Cwnulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Do you recommend that the Lyceum Program expand to another grade level for the 2000-01 school year? Cumulative Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Do you wish to return to the Lyceum Program for the 2000-01 school year? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 . ,, . Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid PROGRAM EVALUATION - LRSD LYCEUM ADMINISTRATIVE SURVEY 1999 - 2000 Student Referral Process Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Opportunities for Acceleration Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 2 66 .7 66.7 66.7 Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Student Parent Contact Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Selection of Students Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Very Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 66.7 Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Cuniculum Offered Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Verv Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Expected Outcomes Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Verv Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Selection of Staff Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 66 .7 66.7 66.7 Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Qualifications of Staff Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 66.7 Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Relationships with Program Personnel Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 66 .7 66.7 66.7 Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Expectations for Student Behavior Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Management of Student Behavior Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 From ALE Administrator Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent . Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 From LRSD Administrator Cumulative Freouency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Student/Parent Orientation Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 66.7 Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Health Services Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 66.7 Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Case Management Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Computer Assisted Instruction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent ( Valid Very Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Instructional Methodology Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 2 66.7 66.7 66.7 Satisfied 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 Total 3 100.0 100.0 Overall Program Satisfaction Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very Satisfied 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Would you recommend the Lyceum Program to other students? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Yes 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Davi1, John 3110/00 9 .33 9 56 Davis, Lrt,ona 11/11W9 10 2.2 10.57 Lacy, Aneuah 6/24199 9 2.2 9 56 LanOI, aulanll 6/24199 9 3 8.11 Lockhart, Ray 812 1911 8 2 . 7.57 Mayfield, Branlaha 2122/00 10 7.1 11 McCoy, Nicole 8124199 9 28 7.85 Parl<&1, April 6/2.WS 10 2.8 11 Simpson, Palrlcl< 6/2 1911 9 2.2 g Simpson, Shelly 812m 10 2.2 9 . 4 Slanlay, JamH 6/2,wg 9 H 911 Vian,, Rataal 6/2.WS 9 2 6 79 Program Evaluation Philander Smith College/LRSD Lyceum Academic Report 5.22 B.37 7.36 6.11 5.17 39 5.35 64 7 . 2 7 . 2 6.71 8.79 1999 - 2000 Plato Fastrack Assessment Pre/Post 6.5 7.87 5.6 9.5 2.56 8,75 52 6 83 2 56 3.83 6 57 825 5.6 8.21 57 10.22 9.25 5.7 917 5 2 76 Bl Compiled - 4128/00 1.37 3.8 7.18 3.73 1.28 2.86 2.71 . 52 4 25 3.47 5 37 . 85 9.2 . 35 2.73 10 7.27 2.73 9.2 6.47 2 38 8.93 6.56 2.09 2 08 0 45 10 55 3.7 7.8 4.1 7.4 10.77 3.37 7.67 10. 1 2 . 7 3.6 10.82 7.22 3.7 10.23 6.53 2.09 6.07 5 86 Davis, John 9 3/10/00 Davis, L one 10 11/10/99 Lac , Aneesah 9 8/24/99 9 8/24/99 9 8/24/99 Ma , Brenisha 10 2/22/00 Mc Nicole 9 8/24/99 Par ii 10 8/24/99 Sim atrick 9 8/24/99 Sim hell 10 9/2/99 9 8/24/99 9 8/24/99 '-- Program Evaluation Philander Smith College/LRSD Lyceum Attendance & Sanctions 14 3 -11 9 1 -8 35 3 -32 29 13 -16 6 0 -6 45 5 -40 14 3 -11 51 24 -27 68 2 -66 43 7 -36 33 4 -29 97 5 -92
,,} ..... Compiled- 4/28/00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 +1 1 I 0 0 1 +1 0 0 0 I 0 -1 1 0 -1 I l 0 5 2 -3 " .~, '
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.