"Little Rock New Futures Initiative: The First Four Years, Selected Findings," Metis Associates, Incorporation

This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.
Little Rock New Futures Initiative: The First Four Years Selected Findings Little Rock Prepared by: Metis Associates, Inc. 80 Broad Street, Suite 1600 New York, New York 10004 (212) 425-8833 June 1993 St!f- 18, 9J /~DO t.K o This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of a contract between Metis Associates, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington, D.C. I. Introduction Little Rock ew Futures Initiative: The First Four Years Selected Findings The ew Futures Initiative. sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. is a fourcity (Dayton. Ohio
Little Rock, Arkansas
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
and Savannah, Georgia), five-year project designed to respond to disadvantaged populations through comprehensive community partnerships. The project aims to increase academic achievement, reduce dropout and teen pregnancy rates, and increase the employability of at-risk middle and high school tudents. One of the unique features of the initiative is the creation of a rich data base containing student characteristics and outcomes. The information included in this data base will be a valuable tool, not only for the collaboratives and individuals who are directly involved with the ew Futures initiatives, but for all those in the community who have an interest in our children. Beginning with the 1988-1989 school year, each ew Futures city was asked to prepare and transmit a computer file containing, for each student enrolled in grades six (or seven) through twelve at any time during the school year', basic demographic information (school, grade, gender, ethnicitv, date of birth and free lunch eligibility2). and outcomes (reading and mathematics achievement test data, annual attendance rates, course failure information, suspensions and/or expulsions, grade retention and dropout data). Additionally, samples of students were surveyed annually on such non-school topics as home structure, parents' education, academic aspirations, work experiences, and sexual and parenting experiences. Each of these data sources can be used to: describe the status of children during a given year (what we refer to as "within-year analyses")
compare the status of children in a given year to the status of children in other years (what we refer to as "over-years analyses")
and follow the status of identified groups of children who remain in the school system over time (what we refer to as "longitudinal analyses"). Each city maintains a confidential student identification numbering system which protects students' privacy, permits us to track students over time, and enables us to merge information from the school computer files with information from the student surveys. While many school departments around the country maintain student information systems for such 1 Also available, but not generally referenced in this report are Year 3 and Year 4 data for kindergarten through sixth-graders. 2 Free lunch data were available in two cities beginning with the 1989-1990 school year. 1 discrete applications as class scheduling, transportation routes, grade reporting, attendance/enrollments and academic achievement, the New Futures data base is unique for its comprehensive and continuous collection of data. Further, the application of common definitions over several years and across everal different middle-sized cities creates an information base that is unparalleled in the field for its potential as a research and management tool. We have now created four reasonably complete files of reliable data for each participating city - a file for the 1988-1989 school year, a file for the 1989-1990 school year, a file for the 1990-1991 school year, and a file for the 1991-1992 school year. 3 After the 1992-1993 school year there will be five such files. Given the high quality, comprehensiveness and continuity of the data collections, the ew Futures data base offers enormous potential for assessing needs, evaluating outcomes and developing sound educational policy . In this condensed report we strive to meet two goals: to share selected findings from our first four years of data collection and analysis and to demonstrate the scope and breadth of the data. Our hope is to encourage others to explore and utilize this valuable resource. Report Organization In this summary report we present findings regarding: enrollment trends
within-year and over-years outcomes for students on several key measures
the changing status of those students who have remained in the school system for the four years of our study
longitudinal enrollments and graduation rates for Year l's 9th graders
and the results of the most recent student survey. Taken together, these findings constitute a fairly succinct overview of the results of our statistical analyses to date. Additional details may be found in the appendices to this report4 and in the full four-year Cohorts and Comparative Data Report. 3 Throughout this report we refer to the 1988-1989 school year as Year l, the 1989-1990 school year as Year 2, the 1990-1991 school year as Year 3 , and the 1991-92 school year as Year 4. 4 Appendi
Table A-1 shows longitudinal enrollment, Table A-2 shows the status change on key variables for all New Futures cities, and Table A-3 examines the relationship between two survey responses and school outcomes. 2 II. Findings A. Enrollment Trends Enrollment data provide a valuable overview of the students in the Little Rock schools. Table 1 shows, over years, enrollment data for junior high school (grades 7-9) and high school (grades 10-12) students in the Little Rock school system during each of the past four school years. Shown are enrollments in each year, the percentage change in enrollments over the four-year period, and the percentage of students in each year who were black or white. Total enrollments decreased by 6.9 percent, from 13,203 students in Year 1 to 12,294 students in Year 4, with decreases in both the junior high and high schools. In Year 1, 57. 7 percent of all enrollees were black, with 62.4 percent black students in the junior high school grades and 53.0 percent black students in the high school grades. By Year 4, 62.7 percent of the students were black, with 66.8 percent black students in the junior high schools, and 58 .2 percent black students in the high schools. Little Rock Table l Over Years Enrollment Data I I Junior High High School Total School Totals Year l 6,590 6,613 13,203 Totals Year 2 6,344 6,156 12,500 Totals Year 3 6,421 5,790 12,211 Totals Year 4 6,507 5,787 12,294 Change Yrs 1-4 -l.3% -12.5% -6.9% RACE Black Year l 62 .4% 53.0% 57 .7% Black Year 2 64.9% 55.7% 60.3% Black Year 3 66.l % 57.7% 62.l % Black Year 4 66.8% 58.2% 62.7% White Year l 36.0% 45.6% 40.8% White Year 2 33.5% 42.9% 38.l % White Year 3 32.5% 40.6% 36.4% White Year 4 32.0% 39.4% 35.5% 3 Table 2 summarizes, by race and school level, the post-Year 4 enrollment status of all of the students who were enrolled in Year 1. How many are still in the Little Rock schools? How many have transferred to another school system? How many have graduated? How many have dropped out of school or been expelled from school? The table shows cumulative enrollments for junior high and high school students. Little Rock Table 2 Cumulative Enrollment Summary Status Year 1 Status Year 4 Level in Race N Still In Transferred Graduated Presumed Unaccounted Expelled Year 1 Year 1 System Out of High Dropout5 For6 Schools System School Jr. High All 6,590 42 .9% 18 .5% 18 .3% 5.0% 13 .3% 2.0% School Black 4,110 46.5% 14.4% 18 .0% 5.3% 13 .0% 2.8% White 2,374 36.l % 25 .4% 19.2% 4.7% 13 .9% 0.7% High All 6,613 0.9% 6.1 % 72 .3% 11.6% 8.3% 0.8% School Black 3,506 1.2% 5.5% 69 .7% 12.7% 9.8% 1.1 % White 3,018 0.6% 6.7% 75 .3% 10.5% 6.5% 0.4% Of the 6,590 students who were in the junior high schools during Year 1 (grades 7 through 9) , 42.9 percent were still in the Little Rock schools by the end of Year 4, 18.5 percent had transferred out of the Little Rock schools, 18.3 percent graduated high school , and a total of 20.3 percent were either presumed dropouts , unaccounted for or expelled . Of the 6,613 students who were in the high schools during Year 1 (grades 10 through 12), by the end of Year 4, less than 1 percent (0 .9%) were still in the Little Rock schools, 6.1 percent had transferred out of the Little Rock schools, 72.3 percent graduated, and a total of 20.7 percent were either presumed dropouts, unaccounted for or expelled. 5 Presumed dropouts are those students who were enrolled in school and then quit, or who had more than 15 days of consecutive unexcused absences. d did nor n turn c. 11 , I u 6 Unaccounted for students were those students who were enrolled in school one year , but unexpectedly did not return to school by October of the following year. Some of these students may have moved from the district without officially transferring. 4 B. Within-Years and Over-Years Analyses Figures 1 through 7 graphically depict, by grade, Year 4 outcomes on key variables. The graphs clearly illustrate differences across grades and between school levels. Figure 1 shows enrollment across grades for kindergarten through 12th grade students. Between 2,000 and 2,500 students were enrolled in each elementary school grade. Junior high school enrollments were between 2,000 and 2,300 at each grade level. High school enrollments were about 2,100 at the 10th grade, but between 1,700 and 1,900 at the other grades. The graph depicts the inflated enrollments at each transitional grade (1st [primary], 7th [junior high school], and 10th [high school]) . Inflated enrollments result from students being retained in grade and from transfers into the system. Figure 2 depicts attendance across grades for junior high school and high school students. It can be seen in the figure that attendance decreases across junior high school grades and increases across high school grades. Students in all grades attended between 85 and about 91 percent of the possible days in Year 4. Tenth grade attendance (86.7%) was the lowest and 7th grade attendance (90.8%) was the highest. Figure 3 shows, for each grade, the percentage of students suspended out of school at least once in Year 4. Suspension rates were considerably higher in the junior high schools than at any other school level. High school rates were much lower than junior high school rates, but were largely consistent across grade levels (about as many seniors as sophomores were suspended out of school.) Less than five percent of elementary school students were suspended from grades kindergarten through five . The 6th grade rate was 6.2 percent. Figure 4 shows the percentage of students retained in each grade. Overall, retention rates are fairly low, but there are important grade level differences within each school level. Retention rates are the highest at the elementary school level in kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grades (almost no students are retained in 3rd through 6th grades). In junior high school the rates are highest at the 8th grade, and in high school rates are highest at the 10th grade. Figure 5 shows the percentage of students over age in each grade. The percentage of students over age is higher in each successive grade from kindergarten to 8th. There is a slight decline at 9th grade, an increase at 10th grade, and lower percentages in 11th and 12th grades than for any other secondary grades . 5 Figure 6 shows the percentage of courses failed in each grade. Junior high school course failure rates were within 2 percentage points of each other, across grades. In the high schools, a course failure rate of 38 percent in the 10th grade, is substantially higher than either the 11th or 12th grade rates (27.9% and 25.0%). Figure 7 shows the percentage of students dropping out in grades 7 to 12. The data are presented in the form of a stacked bar. Each bar combines the percent of students unaccounted for with the percent of presumed dropouts to show the total dropout rate. It can be seen that the dropout rate was fairly similar for 7th and 8th grades, but higher for 9th graders. The dropout rate was at its highest in the 10th grade, and was lower in each successive high school grade. The dropout rate was lowest in the 12th grade. Interestingly, at the high schools, about half of the dropout rate can be accounted for by the percentage of students who are presumed dropouts (3.4 % presumed, 4.1 % unaccounted for, 7.5 % total), at the junior high school level, most of the dropouts are unaccounted for students (0.3% presumed, 4.5% unaccounted for, 4.8% total). The figures graphically depict important patterns in student outcomes. For instance, it can be seen that high school and junior high school rates are different and 10th grade (Little Rock's high school transition grade) is where many problems appear to accumulate. Tenth graders have the highest course failure rates and are the most likely to drop out of school. Negative outcomes in the transition grade to high school are a phenomenon that we have seen in other New Futures cities. 2500 2000 "C Q) 0... . C LU en 1500 c Q) "C -::J Cl) - 0 1000 .... Q) .0 E ::J z 500 Figure 1: Little Rock Enrollment Comparisons, Year 4 K 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Grade 6 100% Q) 95% () C Ctl -c, C 2 =i >, 90% ro 0 Q) Ol .C..t.l Q) > <( 85% -c, Q) -c, 20% C Q) Q. en :::, Cl) -en 15% C Q) -c, :::, u5 0 10% Q) Ol Ctl c Q) (...). Q) 5% a.. 7 Figure 2: Little Rock Attendance Comparisons, Year 4 JHS HS 8 9 10 11 Grade Figure 3: Little Rock 12 Percentage of Students Suspended Out-of-School, Year 4 K 23456 789 10 11 12 Grade 7 -0 QJ 8% 7% '-Ciii 6% QJ a: -fJ) 5% C QJ -0 ::, 4% ii5 0 ~ 3% (13 c QJ ~ 2% QJ Cl.. 0%-!=== K Figure 4: Little Rock Percentage of Students Retained 1n Grade. Year 4 K-6 JHS HS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Grade Figure 5: Little Rock Percentage of Students Over Age, Year 4 20%......r-------------,-------..----------, QJ Cl 15% <( ai > 0 Cl) c QJ -0 10% -::J Cl) -0 c QJ .(...). QJ 5% Cl.. K K-6 JHS HS 23456 789 10 11 12 Grade 8 "O (1) 30% ro u.. VI (1) VI '-- :J 0 () 20% 0 (1) Ol -l1l C (1) (.) '-- (1) 10% a.. 0% 7 12% -VI 10% :J 0 a. 2 0 8% a 0 .c (.) (/) 6% 0 (1) Ol l1l 4% c (1) (.) '-- (1) a.. 2% 0% 7 Figure 6: Little Rock Percentage of Courses Failed, Year 4 8 9 10 11 Grade Figure 7: Little Rock Dropout Comparisons, Year 4 JHS HS 8 9 10 11 Grade I Unaccounted ~ Presumed 9 12 12 Table 3 and Table 4 examine the quartile distributions of junior high and high school reading and mathematics achievement scores for all of the tested students who were enrolled in the Little Rock school system during Year 4. By comparing the scores of Little Rock's students to national norms, we can compute the percentages of Little Rock's students whose scores fall in each quartile . In general, Little Rock's scores were somewhat lower than national norms. In both reading and mathematics, less than 25 percent of the tested students scored in the highest quartile (16 % reading and 17 % mathematics for junior high students
21 % reading and 22% mathematics for high school students) . However, fewer than 25 percent scored in the lowest quartile in junior high school reading (21 % ) , and high school reading and mathematics (17% and 18%). For junior high school mathematics, 34 percent of the tested population scored in the lowest quartile . Additionally, when we analyze the data by race, we find wide discrepancies. Less than 10 percent of the tested white junior high and high school students scored in the lowest reading quartile, versus 28 percent of the black junior high school students and 25 percent of the black high school students. Similarly, only 15 percent of the tested white junior high school students and 7 percent of the tested white high school students scored in the lowest mathematics quartile, compared to 43 percent of the black junior high school students and 26 percent of the black high school students . The racial discrepancies in these data are illustrated in Figure 8 and Figure 9. Also shown in Tables 3 and 4 are the median percentile scores for each racial group. By definition, 50 percent of the tested population receive a score equal to or less than the median. It can be seen that, for junior high school students, while the median score in reading was equivalent to the 44th national percentile, the median score for black students was at the 37th national percentile and the median score for white students was at the 67th national percentile. For high school students, the median score in reading was equivalent to the 48th national percentile
for black high school students the score was equivalent to the 38th percentile and for white students it was at the 67th. Similarly, the median score in mathematics for junior high school students was equivalent to the 38th national percentile, while black students scored at the 31st percentile and white students scored at the 59th percentile. For high school mathematics, the overall median was at the 46th national percentile, while the score for black high school students was at the 36th national percentile and the score for white high school students was at the 66th national percentile. Little Rock Table 3 Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons -- Year 4 Junior High School I Reading I Quartile I (Lowest) 21 % 34% Black 28% White 7% Quartile TI 37% 30% Black 45% White 22% Quartile III 26% 20% Black 21 % White 34% Quartile IV (Highest) 16% 17% Black 6% White 37% Median (Expressed as a Percentile) 44th 38th Black 37th White 67th Junior High School Students Scoring in the Lowest and Highest Quartiles Reading Mathematics 100% "O -Q) 75% en Q) f-- en C Q) "O :::, 50% u-5 0 -C Q) .(...J. Q) a.. 25% All Black White All Black White I Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 11 Math I 43% 15% 33% 24% 17% 26% 7% 34% 31st 59th Little Rock Table 4 Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons -- Year 4 High School I Reading I Quartile I (Lowest) 17% 18% Black 25% White 6% Quartile II 35% 33% Black 45% White 20% Quartile III 28% 27% Black 23% White 34% Quartile IV (Highest) 21 % 22% Black 7% White 40% Median (Expressed as a Percentile) 48th 46th Black 38th White 67th High School Students Scoring in the Lowest and Highest Quartiles Reading Mathematics 100% "C Q) 75% in Q) I- -(/) C (I) "C ::::, en 50% 0 c Q) .C..) aQ..) 25% All Black White All Black White I Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 12 Math I 26% 7% 40% 23% 24% 30% 9% 41 % 36th 66th In this section we examine the status of children on several key outcome measures in Years 1, 2, 3 and 4. This analysis not only provides us with information about how students are doing within each of these years, but also allows us to compare how the student body has performed over the years. It is important to note that these comparisons are not of matched groups of students. The junior high school students in Year 1 are, for the most part, different students than the junior high school students in Year 4. Thus, while over-years comparisons can help to point out status changes over time, it is difficult to ascertain which of these changes to attribute to the system and which to differing populations. Table 5 examines eight school measures for the Little Rock student body. Shown for each year are: average daily attendance rates, the percent of students whose Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) total reading or mathematics scores7 placed them into the lowest quartile (i.e., at or below the 25th national percentile), the percent of students who were at least one-and-one-half years over age for their grades, the percent of students who were suspended out-of-school at least once during the year shown, the percent of students who were retained in grade during the year shown, the percent of courses failed in each year, and the percent of students who were counted as having dropped out. The last column in the table shows, for each factor, the percentage point change from Year 1 to Year 4 (Little Rock suspension data shown are for Years 2 through 4 and the change shown is between Year 2 and Year 4). We have included the words "better" or "worse" to indicate whether the change constitutes an improvement or a decline. It can be seen in Table 5 that: Little Rock's junior high school students show some improvements in dropout rates, but worsening or no change in all other variables. Little Rock's high school students show declining status on attendance and suspension, and improvements on all other indicators. Table 5 also serves as a useful orientation to student performance in the Little Rock school system. 8 Overall, Little Rock's attendance and retention rates and reading and mathematics achievement were relatively good, but there was no improvement over the four year period. Some other measures show comparatively high rates of school problems. Suspension rates were particularly high in the junior high schools, where 18 percent or more of the students were suspended in each of the last three years. Almost one-third of all junior high and high school courses were failed. Total annual dropout rates in Little Rock's junior high schools and high schools improved over the four-year period. 7 Year 4 achievement data are Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) scores which have been converted to Metropolitan Achievement Test scores. 8 Included in the appendix (Table A-2) is a similar table for all New Futures cities combined (Dayton, Savannah, Little Rock and Pittsburgh) . 13 I Little Rock Table 5 Change in Status on Key Variables Percentage Year 1 Versus Percentage Year 4 Variable II Year t I Year 21 Year 31 Year 4 I Change Yr. 1 to Yr. 4 I Attendance (ADA) Junior high school 90.2% 90.7% 90.3% 89.5% -0 .7 worse High School 90.8% 87 .9% 89.3% 87 .9% - 2.9 worse Low Reading Quartile9 Junior high school 21.0% 23.0% 24 .0% 21.0% no change High School 22.0% 22.0% 19.0% 17.0% -5.0 better Low Mathematics Quartile Junior high school 21.0% 21.0% 24.0% 34.0% + 13 .0 worse High School 24.0% 21.0% 19.0% 18.0% -6.0 better Over Age Junior high school 13.4% 13 .6% 15 .9% 15 .0% + 1.6 worse High School 13.4% 13.6% 13.3% 13.2% -0.2 better Out-of-School Suspension Junior high school. NIA 18.6% 21.6% 21.4% +2.8 worse High School NIA 8.1 % 11.3% 9.1 % -ft.0 worse Retention Junior high school 4.1% 4.8% 4.9% 4.6% +0.5 worse High School 4.9% 6.4% 3.6% 4.7% -0.2 better Percent of Courses Failed Junior high school 31.3% 30.7% 31.1% 31.4% +0.1 worse High School 31.8% 31.4% 29.6% 31.4% -0.4 better Dropout Junior high school 9.5% 4.3% 6.9% 4.8% -4.7 better High School 13.8% 10.2% 10.4% 7.5% -6.3 better N for all srudents: Year l = 13,203, Year 2 = 12,500, Year 3 = 12,211, Year 4 = 12,294 N for Junior high school Srudents: Year I = 6,590, Year 2 = 6,344, Year 3 = 6,421, Year 4 = 6,507 N for High School Students: Year I = 6,613, Year 2 = 6,156, Year 3 = 5,790, Year 4 = 5,787 9 Not all high school grades were tested. 14 C. Changing Status Among Children Who Have Remained in the School System (Longitudinal Comparisons) As indicated earlier, the New Futures data base permits us to observe changes in student outcomes over time. Has the academic achievement of students who have remained in the system improved, declined, or remained the same? Table 6 and Table 7 and the accompanying figures illustrate the changes in average reading and math achievement scores for Year 1 's 7th grade (Table 6) and 8th grade (Table 7) students who were tested in Years 1 through 4 and who were not retained in grade. 10 Table 6 shows an overall reading achievement loss of two percentile ranks from Year 1 to 4, and a decline of four percentile ranks in mathematics achievement scores. 11 For both reading and math, the changes are very similar for black and white students. Little Rock Table 6 Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons12 For 7th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Srudents N Yr I Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yrs 1 to 4 (7th) (8th) (9th) (10th) Reading: All Srudents 1,011 56th 59th 65th 54th -2 Black 677 44th 48th 54th 42nd -2 White 316 78th 80th 85th 75th -3 Math: All Srudents 1.014 58th 56th 63rd 54th -4 Black 679 48th 44th 52nd 44th -4 White 317 75th 75th 80th 72nd -3 99 90- Reading Math 80- t .. .::J! 70- C a<':II 60- . ~ Q) rl :
: 50- C Q) .u... 40- Q) a.. 30 20 10 1 I All Black White All Black White I Year 1 0 Year2 a Year3 Effl Year4 I IO Si ne~ retained srudents are generally at an advantage when their data are compared with grade level norms, the longirudinal achievement analyses shown only include srudents who have made normal grade progress. 11 Some of the decline in test scores may be attributable to implementation of a new testing package (from the MAT-6 to the SAT) and the score conversion process. (All Year 4 data were converted from SAT scores to the MAT-6 equivalent.) 12 The table shows the percentile ranks associated with srudents' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores on the Merropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). For comparability, Year 4 Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores were convened to MAT-6 scores. 15 Table 7 shows an overall reading achievement loss of nine percentile ranks for Year 1 's 8th graders from Year 1 to 4, and a decline of three percentile ranks in mathematics achievement scores. Reading losses were greater for white students, but mathematics declines are very similar for both black (-4) and white students (-5) . Little Rock Table 7 Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons13 For 8th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank Yr 1 Rank Yr 2 Rank Yr 3 Rank Yr 4 Yrs 1 to 4 (8th) (9th) (10th) (11th) Reading: All Students 1,011 63rd 70th 58th 56th -9 Black 633 50th 58th 44th 44th -6 White 355 83rd 86th 76th 73rd -10 Math: All Students 1,01 I 61st 70th 56th 58th -3 Black 635 50th 59th 44th 46th -4 White 353 78th 85th 75th 73rd -5 99 90 Reading ,. Math 80 ~ 70- . .. C: ac:a 60 Cl) .. 50 C: Q) u... 40 Q) a.. 30- 20 10 1 All Black White ' All Black White I Year1 D Year2 - Year3 -Year4 13 The Table shows the percentile ranks associated with students ' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) . For comparability , Year 4 Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores were converted to MAT-6 scores. 16 I ...... I A longitudinal group of particular interest consists of those 4,370 students who have been in the school system for all four years. By definition, none of these students graduated, transferred out of the school system, dropped out, or were expelled before the end of Year 4. How have these students been progressing since the initiative began? Tables 8, 9 and 10 show retention, course failure and suspension histories, respectively, for the 4-YEAR COHORT students. Table 8 shows that approximately 12 percent of these students were retained in at least one of the four years. Table 9 shows that the majority (56.7%) of the 4-YEAR COHORT students failed at least one course over the four year period. About 8 percent of the 4-YEAR COHORT students failed one or more courses each year over the four year period. Table 10 shows that over one-fourth (27. 3 % ) of the 4-YEAR COHORT students were suspended out of school in at least one of the three years for which there are data, (Years 2 through 4), and just over 10 percent were suspended in more than one of the three years. Each of the tables shows disparities between outcomes for black students and white students. For example, 14.6 percent of the black students were retained in grade at least once, compared to 6.0 percent of the white students. Similarly, over the four years, 66.1 percent of the black students experienced course failure, compared to 39.4 percent of the white students, and about a third (33 .5 % ) of the black students experienced suspension, compared to just 16.1 percent of the white students. Little Rock Table 8 Retention Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT Students Status Retentions at the end of All Black White Year 4 N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N = 1,386 Never Retained N 3,860 2,495 1,303 % 88.3% 85.4% 94.0% Retained 1 out N 472 390 80 of 4 Years % 10.8% 13.4% 5.8% Retained 2 out N 38 35 3 of 4 Years % 0.9% 1.2% 0.2% Ever Retained in N 510 425 83 4 Years % 11.7% 14.6% 6.0% 17 I I II Table 9: Course Failure Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT Students Status at the end of I Course Failures Year 4 Never Failed a Course Failed a Course in 1 of 4 Years Failed a Course in 2 of 4 Years Failed a Course in 3 of 4 Years Failed a Course in 4 of 4 Years Ever Failed a Course in 4 Years All Black N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N 1,894 990 % 43.3% 33.9% N 865 637 % 19.8% 21.8% N 704 542 % 16.1 % 18.6% N 565 453 % 12.9% 15.5% N 342 298 % 7.8% 10.2% N 2,476 1,930 % 56.7% 66.1 % Table 10: Suspension Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT Students White N = 1,386 854 61.6% 222 16.0% 158 11.4% 112 8.1% 40 2.9% 532 39.4% Status Out-of-School Suspensions at the end of All Black. i . White Year 4 N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N = 1,386 Never N 3,162 1,941 1,163 Suspended % 72.7% 66.5% 83.9% Suspended in 1 N 763 600 159 out of 3 Years % 17.5% 20.5% 11.5% Suspended in 2 N 322 273 48 out of 3 Years % 7.4% 9.3% 3.5% Suspended in 3 N 123 106 16 out of 3 Years % 2.8% 3.6% 1.2% Ever Suspended N 1,208 979 223 in 3 Years % 27.3% 33.5% 16.1 % 18 I D. The Class of '92 Of special interest are the 2,047 students who were enrolled in the ninth grade in Year 1 and therefore were expected to graduate at the end of Year 4. Through the data base we have been able to follow these students, the High School Class of 1992, throughout their high school careers, from their ninth grade experiences in Year 1 to their expected graduation in June of 1992. How did the Class of '92 do? I I Race I N I Year 1 All 2,047 Black 1,198 White 820 Little Rock Table 11 Cumulative Enrollment 9th Grade -- The Class of '92 Status at the End of Year 4 Still In Transferred Graduated Presumed System Out of High Dropout Schools System School 5.5% 14 .5% 58 .7% 7.4% 6.2% 10 .9% 61.2% 8.1 % 4.4% 19.5% 55.4% 6.7% Unaccounted Expelled For 12.9% 1.0% 12 .3% 1.3% 13 .5% 0.5% It can be seen above that: 5.5 percent of the Year 1 ninth graders (including 6.2 percent of the black students and 4.4 percent of the white students) were still active in the Little Rock schools after Year 4
14.5 percent had transferred out of the Little Rock schools (10.9 percent of the black students and 19.5 percent of the white students)
58.7 percent graduated (including 61.2 percent of the black students and 55.4 percent of the white students)
and a total of 21.3 percent had either dropped out of or been expelled from school ( dropouts and expulsions for black students totaled 21. 7 percent, dropouts and expulsions for white students totaled 20. 7 percent). 19 I E. The Student Survey Table 12 presents selected findings for the 2,462 students who completed student surveys in Year 4. 14 The surveys provide additional data about the students in the cohort file, including information about the status of their families, their own attitudes and behaviors regarding schooling, their employment experiences, and their sexual behavior. Table 12 shows, for all students and by race, the number of students responding to each question and the percent of students exhibiting the characteristic. For example, of the 1,971 surveyed students who responded to the question about their home structures, 3 7. 3 percent reported living in a single parent home (including 44.4 % of the black respondents and 23.5% of the white respondents). Of the respondents, 32.9 percent are free-lunch eligible (including 44.1 % of black respondents and only 10.1 % of white respondents). A total of 36 percent of the respondents indicated that they regularly cut classes, and 4. 7 percent expected not to go on to post-secondary schooling. Close to half of the surveyed students (43.3%) reported that they were working at the time the survey was administered, and 64.1 percent of those who were working reported that they were working 15 or more hours per week (during the school year). More than half of the respondents (58.2%) reported that they have had sex at least once and 32.3 percent of this group did not use birth control the last time they had sex. About 19 percent of the girls who have had sex reported that they have gotten pregnant. More than half (52.4%) of those who were pregnant have had a child. Because the survey responses contain the same identification numbers as are used with the school department's data system, we are able to investigate relationships between student characteristics and school outcomes. For instance, students eligible for free or reduced fee lunch generally perform less well on reading achievement tests than their peers who are not eligible. This association was seen among black students as well as among white students. Further, more poor than non-poor students are low attenders, fail courses, receive out-ofschool suspensions, are not promoted, and are over age for grade. Similarly, students with low academic aspirations performed less well on all of the student outcomes than their peers who do not have low academic aspirations. Once again, these associations were seen among black students as well as among white students. 15 14 The student surveys were administered to a sample of 7th - 12th grade students in each of the Little Rock junior and senior high schools. A total of 2,462 students responded to the Year 4 survey. 15 Appendix Table A-3 examines the relationships between two survey responses (low academic aspirations and freelunch eligibility) and several school outcomes. 20 Table 12 Little Rock Selected Surveyed Characteristics for All Secondary Students16 N = 2,462 Characteristic Students Exhibiting % of White Respondents, Characteristic Students By Item N % Exhibiting Characteristic N=829 N % Single Parent Home 1,971 734 37.3% 150 23.5% Free Lunch Eligibility 1,971 649 32.9% 63 10.1% % of Black Students Exhibiting Characteristic N= 1,596 N % 578 44 .4% 580 44.1% Cut Classes 2,421 871 36 .0% 454 44.4% 1,073 31.5% Low Academic 2,263 106 4.7% 32 Aspirations Working 1,731 749 43.3% 307 Working Full Time 674 432 64.1 % 117 Had Sex 2,253 1,312 58.2% 363 No Birth Control 1,268 409 32.3% 234 Last Time Fathered a Child 724 66 9.1% 15 Pregnant 558 57 10.2% 12 Ever Pregnant 557 105 18.9% 26 Have Child 105 55 52.4% 10 Single Parent Home indicates that the child is living with one parent. step parent. or foster parent. Free Lunch Eligibility includes students who are eligible for free and reduced fee lunch. 4.2% 46.0% 58.2% 47 .6% 34.1 % 7.6% 7.6% 16.4% 38.5% Cut Classes includes srudents who reported that they cut class "often" or "sometimes" (as opposed to never). 73 428 116 937 619 50 44 79 45 Low Academic Aspirations is defined as expecting not 10 pursue post-secondary schooling (i. e. , completing high school or less). Working is defined as employed at the time of survey administration. Working Full Time is defined as working 15 or more hours per week during the school year. Had sex includes both male and female srudents. 5.0% 41.2% 69.2% 64.4% 30.3% 9.6% 11.1 % 20.2% 57.0 % No Birth Control includes both male and female srudents who have had sexual intercourse and indicated that neither they nor their partner had used birth control the last time they had intercourse. Pregnant and Ever Pregnant items were tabulated for sexually active females and indicate, respectively whether they are currently pregnant or ever have been pregnant. Have Child includes female srudents who have given birth to a child. Fathered a Child was tabulated for sexually active males who indicated that they had fathered a child. 16 Only a few survey variables are considered in these analyses. Complete reports of survey data are available in separate publications. 21 III. Conclusion This report sketches an overview of the status of children attending the Little Rock public schools. It contains broad, over-years and longitudinal analyses which reflect the conditions (inside and outside of the school system) which New Futures is intended to address. W1'jle the analyses presented in this report show some of the trends and outcomes that have taken place during the first four years of the initiative, they do not constitute an evaluation of the initiative, nor of the Little Rock school system. We have presented only a small sample of the analyses that have been performed on the New Futures data base. 17 We hope that the thoughtful presentation of such analyses can engage broad constituencies in valuable discourse leading ultimately to the formulation of improved service-delivery policies and inter-agency collaboration. It is in this spirit that we offer these findings. One of the unique features of the New Futures Initiative is that the powerful data base used to generate the analyses is available to an interagency body. We strongly encourage the interagency group to put this powerful tool to use - to raise community awareness, to set priorities, and to help inform and shape policy. 17 The full four-year Cohorts and Comparative Data Report (Metis Associates, Inc., New York, NY), annual qualitative evaluation reports (Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington, DC}, separate statistical reports of the survey results (Institute for Survey Research, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA), and other publications may be obtained from New Futures for Little Rock Youth. 22 Appendices Entering Junior High School "Class of '92" Entering High School Table A-1: Little Rock Cumulative Enrollment Status After Year 4 for all Students Enrolled in Year I Status Year I Status Year 4 Grade N In System Transferred Graduated Presumed Unaccounted Schools Dropout For 7th 2,226 62.1 % 20.9% 0.0% 1.8% 12.5% Black 1,444 66. l % 16.4% 0.0% 1.7% 11.9% White 741 54 .4% 29 .1% 0.0% 2.0% 13.8% 8th 2,317 57.2% 19.8% 0.3% 6.0% 14.5% Black 1,468 60.1% 15.2% 0.3% 6.7% 14.6% White 813 51.6% 27.8% 0.2% 5.0% 14.5% 9th 2,047 5.5% 14.5% 58.7% 7.4% 12.9% Black 1,198 6.2% 10.9% 61.2% 8.1 % 12.3% White 820 4.4% 19.5% 55.4% 6.7% 13.5% Junior High 6,589 42.9% 18.5% 18.3% 5.0% 13.3% Black 4, 110 46.5% 14.4% 18.0% 5.3% 13.0% White 2,374 36.1% 25.4% 19.2% 4.7% 13 .9% 10th 2,432 1.7% 9.8% 59.9% 15.3% 12.0% Black 1,448 2.1% 8.1 % 59.0% 15.8% 13.3% White 950 1.3% 12.3% 61.0% 14.8% 9.9% 11th 2,210 0.8% 7.2% 68 .0% 12.7% 10.7% Black 1,131 I.I% 6.5% 65.4% 13 .5% 12.4% White 1,055 0.6% 7.9% 70,3% 11.9% 9.1% 12th 1,971 0.0% 0.2% 92 .9% 5.7% 0.1% Black 927 0.0% 0.2% 91.5% 6.8% 1.3% White 1,013 0.0% 0.1 % 94 .2% 4.9% 0.6% High School 6,613 0.9% 6.1% 72.3% 11.6% 8.3% Black 3,506 1.2% 5.5% 69.7% 12.7% 9.8% White 3,018 0.6% 6.7% 75 .3% 10.5% 6.5% Total 13,203 21.8% 12.3% 45.4% 8.3% 10.8% Black 7,616 25.7% 10.3% 41.8% 8.7% 11.5% White 5,392 16.2% 14.9% 50 .7% 7.9% 9.8% Expelled 2.7% 3.9% 0.7% 2.2% 3.1% 0.9% 1.0% 1.3% 0.5% 2.0% 2.8% 0.7% 1.3% 1.7% 0.7% 0.6% 1.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.8% 1.1% 0.4% 1.4% 2.0% 0.5% Table A-2: All New Futures Cities (Dayton, Little Rock, Pittsburgh and Savannah Combined) Change in Status on Six Key Variables Percentage Year 1 Versus Percentage Year 4 Variable Year 1 Year 4 Change Attendance (ADA) Middle School 89.5% 89.3% -0.2 worse High School 86.1% 84.2% -1.9 worse Low Q Membership Middle School 28.4% 25.4% -3.0 better High School 24.7% 24.2% -0.5 better Retention Middle School 8.8% 7.0% -1.8 better High School 13.7% 18.7% 5.0 worse Over Age Middle School 19.3% 15.5% -3.8 better High School 22.3% 22.7% 0.4 worse % of Courses Failed Middle School 11.4% 14.4% 3.0 worse High School 20.7% 22.8% 2.1 worse Total Dropout Middle School 9.5% 7.3% -2.2 better High School 18.1 % 13.1 % -5.0 better N for All Students: Year 1 = 61,977, Year 4 = 60,067 N for Mtcidle School Students: Year l = 26,644, Year 4 = 27,415 N for High School Students: Year l = 35,334, Year 4 = 32,652 I I Table A3-Little Rock Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For All Surveyed Students (In Percents) Factor = Free Lunch Eligibility Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No I N=649 N=l ,321 N=580 N=735 N=63 N=563 Low Achievement 30.0% 12.5% 30.6% 18.5% 25.5% 5.1 % Low Attendance 20.3% 14.8% 20.9% 13.5% 17.5% 16.9% Course Failures 30.2% 24.6% 30.7% 30.5% 28.6% 17.2% Suspension 20.5% 11.l % 21.5% 14.0% 12.7% 7.8% Over Age 17.4% 8.1 % 17.8% 11.3% 14.3% 3.9% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed Junior High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Free Lunch Eligibility I Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N= 479 N=626 N=429 N=360 N=45 N=260 Low Achievement 28.9% 11 .5% 28.8% 16.0% 29.5% 5.5% Low Attendance 18.8% IO.I% 19.6% 8.4% 13.3% 12.3% Course Failures 26.9% 17.9% 28.2% 21.9% 17.8% 12.3% Suspension 24.6% 14.4% 26.1 % 18 .3% 13.3% 9.2% Over Age 17.3% 7.7% 17.9% 10.3% 13 .3% 4.2% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Free Lunch Eligibility Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N=l42 N=567 N=125 N=306 N=l6 N=245 Low Achievement 31.8% 13 .9% 35 .7% 21.7% 10.0% 4.7% Low Attendance 23.9% 19.2% 24.0% 18.0% 25.0% 21.6% Course Failures 36.6% 30.7% 34.4% 38.2% 56.3% 22.0% Suspension 7.7% 8.3% 8.0% 9.8% 6.3% 6.9% 0Over Age 16.9% 8.5% 16.0% 12.1 % 18 .8% 3.7% I I Table A3-Little Rock Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For All Surveyed Students (In Percents) Factor = Low Aspirations Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes 1 No Yes No I N=336 N=l,927 N=229 I N= 1,228 N=l02 N=668 Low Achievement 55.l % 17.l % 60.9% 22.9% 43.5% 6.3% Low Attendance 39.6% 15.8% 39.7% 16.2% 40.6% 15.4% Course Failures 52 .8% 25.0% 56.2% 30.2% 46.9% 15.7% Suspension 33.0% 12.2% 41.l % 15.4% 15.6% 6.8% Over Age 34.9% 9.7% 39.7% 12.6% 21.9% 4.2% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed Junior High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Low Aspirations I Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N=70 N=l,153 N=51 N=797 N=l9 N=344 Low Achievement 51.8% 17.5% 55.3% 22.4% 44.4% 6.7% Low Attendance 35.7% 12.8% 41.2% 13.2% 21.l % 11.9% Course Failures 50.0% 19.0% 52.9% 23.0% 42.l % 10.2% Suspension 37.l % 16.3% 45 . l % 19.9% 15.8% 8.1 % Over Age 35.7% 10.3% 39.2% 12.9% 26.3% 4.4% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Low Aspirations Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N=32 N=813 N=l9 N=476 N=l2 N=310 Low Achievement 72.7% 15.8% 85.7% 23.6% 50.0% 5.0% Low Attendance 46.9% 19.8% 31.6% 20.2% 75.0% 19.9% Course Failures 56.3% 32.0% 57.9% 39.3% 58.3% 21.8% Suspension 25.0% 7.1 % 31.6% 8.4% 16.7% 5.7% Over Age 31.3% 9.0% 36.8% 12.2% 16.7% 4.1 %
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.

<dcterms_creator>Metis Associates, Incorporation</dcterms_creator>