Little Rock School District Compliance Report

The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.
IN' THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERIN"E KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 : 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAIN'TIFF DEFENDANTS IN'TER VENO RS IN'TER VENO RS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ("Revised Plan"), with the exception of Revised Plan 2. 7.1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan 2.7.1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD 's Board of Directors ("Board") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the "Process for Raising Compliance Issues" set for in Revised Plan 8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003. At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph "D" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs "A" and "B" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04
(2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students
(3) maintain written records of ( a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process
and ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment --- -e .,tM it,~ "? plan. ~W,<1 Pl/AM 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-Rl when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2.7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of(a) the criteria used to evaluate each program
(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs
and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessmen1. plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 a National Science Foundation ("NSF") grant
Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction
and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance <f' Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any "questions or concerns" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Board- ti' approved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs "A" and "B" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan 2. 7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy
that the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations
and that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 HElSCHEL H. fl.JOA Y (1'22-1"4) WIWAM tL SlJTTON, P.A. BYI.OH M.. EISEMAN. JL, P.A. JOE D. BELL P.A. JAMES A. BUTT1.Y, P.A. fl.EDERJCX S. URSEllY, P.A OSCAl. E. DAVIS. JL. P.A. JAMES C. CLAll. JL, P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN D!Wl!Y WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LAJ.J.Y 'W. BUllS, P.A. A. WYCll.lFP NISBET, Jl.., P.A. JAMES EDWAJ:D HAIJUS, P.A J. PtoWP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHEU> lUSSE.LL Ill. P.A DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WIWAM THOMAS BAXTEIL P.A. 1.JCHAI.D D. TAYLOa.. P.A. JOSEPH B. KUUT. JI.., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEH MUllAY, P.A. CHR.ISTOPHER HELLEl. P.A. LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBEI.T S. SHAFER. P.A. WIU.IAM M. GltJFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOOl.E. P.A. DIANE S. MACXEY, , .A. WAL TEI. M. EBEL Ill, P.A UVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WlLLIA.M A. WADDELL JL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTEl. P.A. I.OBEI.T 8. BEActl JL, P.A. J. UE Bl.OWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAK.ER.. JL. P.A. H.AllY A. LIGHT. P.A SCOTT H. TUCl.ER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. Pl.ICE C. GAkDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONfS, P.A DAVID D. lr'IUON. P.A. JEFPJl.EY H. MOOR.I., P.A. DAVID M. Gll.A.F, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE & CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 00 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3 93 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-21 7 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703..4811 TELEPHONE 470.-HS..2011 FAX 479--ISV52147 2011 HORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 170.-782 211H FAX 170,-7822911 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 722Ql RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: CAJ..LA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN' C. FENDLEY. Jl.., P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHUSTOPKER LAWSON, P.A FR.AH C. HICKMAN. P.A BETIY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMJTtl P.A. CUfl'OllD W. PLUNKETT, P.A DANIELL. KEIJUNGTON, P.A MARVIN L CHILDEJ..s [.. COLEMAN' WESTBR.OOK.. JR.. ALLISON J. COkHWEU EUEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HfMDR.EN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICH.A.EL E. r..A.JJaY KEU Y MUR..PKY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCXA Y AU:XANDllA A. In.AH JAY T. TAYLOR M.UTIN A. LUTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. DUX.E JOSEPH G NlCHOU ROBUT T. SMITH RY AN A. BOWMAN TIMOTifY C. UEU. T. MICHELU ATOk KAIEN S. HALBERT SAlAH M. COTTON PHJLIP 8. MONTGOMERY lklSTEN S l.JGGINS Al.AH G. BRY A>I LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN lHAYYAM M. !J>DJNGS JOtof F. PEISlllCH AMANDA CA.PPS lOSE Bl.ANDON J. HAU..ISOH o, C'OUNll.l B.S. a.All WJWAM L TEllY WlWAM L PATTON, JR. K. T. LAllUl.E. P.A. JOlffi C. EOfOU. P .A A.D MCAWSTEl JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL so1 .. no-nn FAX 501 .. 24-lSJ.41 fendleyClec.net Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. i.. EXHIBIT I A All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as "implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... ", which are to be subjected to "comprehensive program evaluation ... " Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ "scaffolding" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division of Instruction's "Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools," a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was "inadequate." Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation "completed" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to talce account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-RI. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the / District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-Rl. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In adpition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that "Conflict of Interest" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations \ with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The J primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will I - All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation Surveys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the "team" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of"conflict of interest." In order to insure that "conflict of interest" is avoided, the "external consultant" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the "Program Evaluation Procedures" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its Ero grams. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ulhmately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see "Accuracy Standards," para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all of Joshua's concerns. If any party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementarv Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,
Literacy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator .. EXHIBIT I B Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02 An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data. Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was: Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools. Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review). Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum. School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary\ math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the . ) elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level. A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a "coach" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD). Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilizec'1 to provide monthly "coaches" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum. Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The "Lesson Study' and "Study Group" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. ) 2002-03 The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results of this analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the "big ideas" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) ( revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers. Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items. Program modifications based on this data were: Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students. Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric. Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items. 4 th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given "School Improvement" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status. A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School). A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School) Improvement as a result of the audit findings. One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel-author of Highly Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to 1 ead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04 All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculwn resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003, preschool conference. Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students. A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in ( probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns' s materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials. Three elementary schools on School Improvement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools. Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals. ( 21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools. Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell. Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum. r Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam. A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results ofthis alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. , Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02 Item analyses of 6th , 8th , Algebra L and Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02 Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8 TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12 District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiYing trninill-g.s - Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations
Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The r.l 1 ~ following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: \l.Y o Strategies for Teaching Geometry Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks
The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. sV These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC (.,.,IJJVK.l--t results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra The agendas for horizontal team meetings (each grade/subject level 6th gradeCalculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of wealmess for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom. Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 7 2002-03 Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities
Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high J schools
Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained Continued District-wide end-of-.s!1arteLtest..for 6th grade - Calculus
Continued to provide prof'essTo"nal development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses Strategies for Teaching Algebra Integrating the Graphing Calculator Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD
Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics
Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers/ vlt,
.., Held horizontal team meetings (one per semester) for each secondary math course
2003-04 Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I - Calculus teachers
Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the t1n-vti,,...-/ Mathematics Classroom - used the TI-Navigator system
Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus
Continued end-of-quarter tests
6 th -8 th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks
Marcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing rogram was the weak comRone_!_lt oft~ literacy instructional prQg[am. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include "best practices." The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. -T-w-el-ve schools chose to participate in the pniiect to begin.in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the sc oo s to o ow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following: Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan. ( Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. ... EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development: Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students. Provided a diverse collection of books to low performing schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading. Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examinin their data and using it to make ro am modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a p an or working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content ar~a reading.a.nd...writing. In addition to the professional de~being o ere on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following: Classroom demonstrations Classroom observations with post observation conference Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given tl:Je DIBELS letter identification
first grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests
and the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, .and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation
first grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading~ -, fluency test
and second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. IV"/ The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. / The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools when the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide l/,W-,e,1.w -""" professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. ~ Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of "Writing On Demand" and "Constructed Response". I 11 Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2 hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas: Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Corners Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Corners, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. 4 C ao.c 1--y:,s Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area ofliteracy. !y 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACTAAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principal in session devoted to best practices for improvement ofliteracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, taking turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with achers (approximate! 75 all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 I. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and -focus on op.timuro results _were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom mstruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ... EXHIBIT l E. mechanics and usage areas..whi)e the writing in content areas i eaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification ofliteracy program in terms oftest preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status oflowest achieving students. Summer '02- '03. (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lowest performing high schools , based on ACT AAP.) 6. Teachers met during summer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending docwnent. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculwn: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement oflower-achieving students .. September '03. 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03. 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03. 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03. } SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness oftest ( _ preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03. 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instru~ion based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation ofreading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05. 11. All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going f' 1. ~r and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress. Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACT AAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content.
7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. ~-.. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) I 0. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for hi gh school English teachers Spring 2004. 11 . Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Program Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004 continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January, 2004 ~ . Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools / Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey. All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004 ( Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 Jl/4 i ct -t IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 1: 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ("Revised Plan"), with the exception of Revised Plan 2.7 .1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan 2. 7 .1 . 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD's Board of Directors ("Board") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the "Process for Raising Compliance Issues" set for in Revised Plan 8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003. At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph "D" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs "A" and "B" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04
(2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students
(3) maintain written records of(a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process
and ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 plan. To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-Rl when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2. 7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program
(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs
and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 a National Science Foundation ("NSF") grant
Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction
and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any "questions or concerns" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Boardapproved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs "A" and "B" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan 2. 7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy
that the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations
and that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol A venue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street , Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 HEJlSCHEL H. FklDAY (1,22-1"') WILLIAM H. SlTTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.., P.A. JOE D. BELL P.A. JAMES A. BlTTTI.Y, P.A. PREDERJCX. S. UISEltY, P.A. OSCAI. E. DAVIS. Jk., P.A. JAMES C. CLARI.. JR.., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGOETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LADY W. BUU.S, P.A. A. WYCK.LIPF NISBET, JIL, P.A. JAMES EDWAJlD HAll.lS, P.A. J. PHIWP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill , P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILL.JAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. aJOLUD D. TAYLOI.. P.A. JOSEPH 8 . HUIST, JI. .. , P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUllAY, P.A. CHRJSTOPHER HELLEIL P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERTS. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOOllE, P.A. DIANE S. MACXEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Ill. P.A. UVIN A. CR.ASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL JL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. I.OBERT B. BEACH. Jlt., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. H.ARJlY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCK.ER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GAkDNER.. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFfR.EY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GR.AF, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE & CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www .frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703<'811 TELEPHONE 479-GUS.2011 FAX "79-GU52147 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870.782 28U8 FAX 870-.782 2918 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: CAJlL.A GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, Jlt... P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. It.. CHRJSTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. FR.AN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIELL. HER.JUNGTON, P.A. MAI.VIN L CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOl... JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL MICKA.ELE. ~EY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCOY ALEXANDRA A. lf'll.AH JAY T. TAYLOR MAJlTIN A. ~TEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. DUE.E JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBEJ.T T. SMITH RY AN A. BOWMAN TIMOTIIY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR UJ..EN S. KALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHlUP B. MONTGOMERY I.RJSTEN S. l.JGGJNS Al...A}r,I G. BIYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN I.HA YY AM M. E.DDl'NGS JOKN f . PEISEJUCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BJ.ANDON J. HAR.JUSON orcowsv.. B.S. a.All WJWAM L TEllY WlWAM L PATTON, JR. H. T. LAIZELE..l.E. P.A. JOHN C. EOtOLS, P.A. A.D. MCAUJSTU. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501J70.U2J FAX S012'4SS41 fenclltyQfec.net Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. EXHIBIT A ' All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as "implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... ", which are to be subjected to "comprehensive program evaluation ... " Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ "scaffolding" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2. 7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division oflnstruction's "Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools," a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was "inadequate." Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation "completed" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-Rl. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-Rl. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that "Conflict of Interest" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation SUIVeys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the "team" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of"conflict of interest." In order to insure that "conflict of interest" is avoided, the "external consultant" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the ''Program Evaluation Procedures" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its programs. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see "Accuracy Standards," para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all of Joshua's concerns. If any party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementary Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,, Literacy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator .. EXHIBIT I B Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02 An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data. Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was: Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools. Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review). Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum. School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level. A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a "coach" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD). Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilized to provide monthly "coaches" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum. Another program modification made ac
a result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The "Lesson Study" and "Study Group" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. ~ EXHIBIT l~ 2002-03 The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results ofthis analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the "big ideas" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers. Bench.mark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items. Program modifications based on this data were: Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students. Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric. Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items. 4th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given "School Improvement" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status. A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School). A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School Improvement as a result of the audit findings. One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel- author of Highly Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to lead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04 All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculum resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003, preschool conference. Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students. A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns's materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials. Three elementary schools on School Improvement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools. Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals. 21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools. Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell. Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum. Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam. A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results of this alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02 Item analyses of 61\ 8th , Algebra I, and Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02 Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8 TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12 District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiving trainings Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations
Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: o Strategies for Teaching Geometry Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks
The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra The agendas for horizontal team meetings ( each grade/subject level 6th grade - Calculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom. Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 2002-03 Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities
Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high schools
Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6th grade - Calculus
Continued to provide professional development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses Strategies for Teaching Algebra Integrating the Graphing Calculator Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD
Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics
Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers Held horizontal team meetings ( one per semester) for each secondary math course
2003-04 Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I - Calculus teachers
Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the Mathematics Classroom - used the TI-Navigator system
Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus
Continued end-of-quarter tests
6th -8th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks
Marcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing program was the weak component of the literacy instructional program. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include "best practices." The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. Twelve schools chose to participate in the project to begin in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following: Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan. Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. .. EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development: Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students. Provided a diverse collection of books to low performing schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading. Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examining their data and using it to make program modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a plan for working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content area reading and writing. In addition to the professional development being offered on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following: Classroom demonstrations Classroom observations with post observation conference Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification
first grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests
and the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation
first grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading fluency test
and second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools wh<
n the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of "Writing On Demand" and "Constructed Response". Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2 hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas: Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Comers Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Comers, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. 4 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACT AAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principal in session devoted to best practices for improvement ofliteracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, talcing turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with teachers (approximately 75) from all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 1. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and focus on optimum results were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ~ EXHIBIT f f_ mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification of literacy program in terms of test preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status oflowest achieving students. Summer '02- '03. (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lowest performing high schools, based on ACTAAP.) 6. Teachers met during summer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending document. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculum: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement of lower-achieving students.. September '03. 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03. 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03 . 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03. 7. SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness oftest preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03. 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instruction based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation of reading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05. 11. All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April- May 04. On-going 1. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress. Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content. 7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) 10. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers Spring 2004. 11 . Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Prograqi Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004 Continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January,2004 Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey. All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004 Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 CREP Center for Research in Educational Por~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION Steven M. Ross John Nunnery Lana Smith Aaron McDonald Allan Sterb1nsky Center for Research In Educational Policy Un1vers1ty of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 November 2003 ~ EXHIBIT I E Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation Executive Summary The present report provides the results from a study of the different literacy programs used in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). After expending substantial effort and resources to improve the reacting ability of students in the district, administrators at LRSD wanted to examine the effectiveness of the clifferent programs used within the district for literacy instruction. To facilitate this examination, the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at The University of Memphis was employed to provide an independent, third party evaluation. The evaluation methodology and data analysis were oriented around the following research questions: 1. What are teacher perceptions of and reactions to the different literacy programs? 2. After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement, clid African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students? 3. What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American? 4. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003? 5. Were differences in achievement gains between African American students and other students similar at different grade levels and for clifferent test instruments? 6. Was there a relationship between the literacy program implemented at the elementary schools, school composition variables (i.e., school poverty and percentage of African American students enrolled), and the achievement of African American students? Method The evaluation design was based on both quantitative student achievement data as well as qualitative data from K-12 faculty members who are responsible for literacy instruction. The primary data sources were (a) a questionnaire completed by teachers, (b) focus groups conducted with faculty members representing different literacy programs in the district, and (c) student achievement data including the Literacy Benchmark scale score, SAT-9 Reading subscale score, and the SAT-9 Language subscale score. During the 2002-2003 school year, two CREP researchers conducted seven focus groups at the Neighborhood Resource Center using a structured interview guide. Each focus group was approximately one-hour in duration. Teachers signed a permission form to be interviewed and were given assurance that their comments would be confidential and anonymous. The sessions were audiotape-recorded and supplemented with the researchers' hand-written notes. The Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaires were printed and shipped to LRSD personnel. The district staff members clisseminated the questionnaires to the individual schools along with instructions for completing and returning the forms to the district. After the district staff received the completed forms, they were sent to CREP for analysis. Similarly, district Pagel of 47 personnel assembled the student achievement data into an electronic format. The data files were then sent to CREP researchers for analysis. The focus group and surveys were analyzed thematically and descriptively, respectively. A synthesis was then developed to highlight findings by literacy program and grade level (e.g., elementary and secondary) as provided by the district. The achievement methodology and analysis is discussed in the achievement section below. Results Teacher Focus Groups and Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaire A synthesis of themes and related findings from the seven focus groups and teacher questionnaire is provided in "bulleted" format for a concise overview. The reader is encouraged to examine the full report for detailed findings. Most Effective Program Elements (Elementary) Professional development (PD) when received New materials Emergent literacy/readiness skills for Kindergarten Positive impact on student writing Literacy Coaches (in RR program) Providing instruction at students' level Most Effective Program Elements (Secondary) Positive Impact on student writing Paired reading (instructional strategy) Portfolios and interactive journals Least Effective Program Elements (Elementary) Inconsistent implementation across and within schools Texts not aligned with SAT-9 Some leveled texts and vocabulary are not appropriate Transient student population is problematic Parent/community involvement is not at desired levels Least Effective Program Elements (Secondary) Gaps in training that is offered to teachers Lack of consistency in literacy instruction and programs (across and within schools) Lack of teacher support from non-literacy subject areas Parent/community involvement is not at desired levels Teacher support for the Programs (Elementary) Level of support varies across schools (and within schools) Page 2 of 47 Support for ELLA and Effective Literacy is high because the
- fit well with what teachers were already doing or moving toward anyway SFA is most polarized (love or hate the program) Teacher support (Secondary) Generally positive attitudes, but not much support from non-literacy teachers District support (Elementary) Lack of consistency for teachers to attend training (substitutes
availability of training) District provides materials, but could also use teacher aides in the classroom District support (Secondary) Literacy coaches would be beneficial Need to use district time set aside for inservices to plan a more comprehensive literacy approach Professional Development (Elementary) Quality of professional development received has been mixed, but teachers are generally positive Literacy Coach (providing leadership and training) has been beneficial General consensus that there is a lack of ongoing training (or opportunity to attend recommended/mandated number of days) Professional Development (Secondary) Quality of professional development received has been mixed Would like more training Teachers do not see training sessions as tying together. Not sure what "big picture" literacy plan is Classroom Changes (Elementary) Positive impact on Kindergarten students More emphasis on student writing Students are learning reading strategies There has been some return to traditional instructional practices Classroom Changes (Secondary) More cooperative learning (with mixed results) Special Education teachers assist students in classes (instead of pullout program) Impact on Students (Elementary) Learned better cooperation skills Increased confidence in reading Students are learning reading strategies Page 3 of 47 Impact on Students (Secondary) There is some increased motivation to read Assessments and leveled readers are creating more success and confidence for students Students are writing more often Impact on Teachers (Elementary) Negative impact on time and stamina Additional instructional strategies and materials have been beneficial Increased sharing of ideas Impact on Teachers (Secondary) Increased sharing of strategies Focus on bringing lower performing students to proficiency level High school teachers had lower levels of agreement on all survey items (comparatively) Student Achievement Data The primary purpose of research focus was to examine the achievement of African American students in reading and language arts in the Little Rock School District. The five achievement oriented research questions (#2 - #5 above) were used to guide the methodology and analyses. Methodology Subjects of the study included all students enrolled in grades 3 to 11 in the Little Rock School District during the 2002-2003 school year for whom 2003 Literacy Benchmark or 2003 SAT-9 scores were available. This included a total of 11,934 students, of whom 23.4% were Caucasian, 68.2% were African-American, and 48.5% were certified as eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Three measures were used to assess literacy: the Literacy Benchmark scale score (Grades 4, 6, and 8), and the SAT-9 Reading subscale score, and SAT-9 Language subscale score (both Grades 5, 7, and 10). Analyses District-wide achievement effects. The basic analytic model used to gauge district-wide achievement effects was a 2 (free lunch status) X 2 (gender) X 2 (African-American, nonAfrican American) analysis of variance (ANOVA). This basic model was adapted to each grade level to reflect: (a) the availability of achievement data from the prior year, in which case a 2 X 2 X 2 analysis of covariance (ANCOV A) was used
(b) the specific 2003 outcome data that were available at each grade level (either Literacy Benchmark scores or SAT9 scores)
and (c) the number of outcome variables. School composition and program effects. For elementary schools, information was available regarding specific literacy programs being implemented in the schools. For 5th grade, a two level hierarchical linear model (HLM) was performed to examine relationships between Page 4 of 47 school composition factors (aggregate poverty, mean achievement at pretest. and percentage African American enrollment), school literacy programs, and student achievement. Longitudinal cohort performance on Benchmark Examinations. For fourth and eighth grades, three consecutive years of Literacy Benchmark Performance Level data were available. The percentage of African American students scoring in Below Basic, Basic, Proficient. and Advanced categories was computed for each year from 2001 to 2003 to provide a basis for examining overall trends in performance across time. Elementary Level Results Below, conclusions and results based on analyses performed on fourth and fifth grade data are presented by research question. After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement, did African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students? African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literacy tests were lower for African American students than for other students. What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American? Although there was a significant relationship between African American status and student achievement, the proportion of variance in academic performance attributable to African American status was very low-4.6% for fourth grade, and 5.7% for fifth grade. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003? The performance of African American fourth grade students on the Benchmark Literacy examination improved dramatically between 2001 and 2003, with nearly half performing at a "Below Basic" level in 2001, compared to only one-fifth in 2003. Was there a relationship between the literacy program implemented at the school, school composition variables, and the achievement of African American students? No significant relationship was observed between the type of literacy program implemented and the achievement of African American students. The percentage of African American students enrolled in a school did not predict overall achievement or the achievement of African American students. School poverty, as measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, had a negative effect on the achievement gains of students. Page 5 of 47 Secondary Level Results The secondary conclusions and results by research question are as follows: After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement. did African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students? The absolute level of achievement of African American students was substantially lower than that of other students of similar gender and free lunch eligibility status. Generally, the gains in academic achievement of African American students were similar to those of other students in grades 6 to 11. What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American? When data on prior achievement were available, the proportion of variance in 2003 achievement attributable to African American status was quite low at the secondary level, ranging from 0% to 5%. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003? The performance of African American 8th graders on the Literacy Benchmark exam improved substantially and consistently between 2001 and 2003, with the percentage scoring "Below Basic" dropping from 48.5% to 34.5%, and the percentage scoring "Proficient" increasing from 14.9% to 23.9%. Were differences in achievement gains between African American students and other students similar at different grade levels and for different test instruments? From the 5th to the 8th grade cohort, the achievement gains of African American students became more similar to those of other students, and for some subgroups surpassed those of other students in 8th grade. The gap in achievement gains was greater on the SAT9 than on the Literacy Benchmark examination. Presumably, the Literacy Benchmark examination is more closely aligned to the mandated curriculum than is the SAT9, which is intentionally designed to be insensitive to curricular differences. Summary and Conclusions The Little Rock School District is commended for the emphasis given to increasing literacy in all schools in the district and not just those in the lowest performing strata. The state and local initiatives in literacy for early learners, including ELLA and Effective Literacy, are well grounded in current research of best practice. In addition, the Reading Recovery and Success for All models are among the best researched and proven programs in the nation for lower-performing students. Impressions from interviews and survey data, however, are that Page 6 of 47 these programs are often perceived as separate and discrete entities instead of integral to a district comprehensive literacy program. Teachers describe themselves or their schools as "doing" ELLA or Success for All and only the certified tutors 'doing"' Reading Recovery. Middle and high school teachers' comments seemed to indicate that they also did not perceive themselves as being involved in a literacy plan beyond the traditional roles they have had as English teachers. Thus, it is recommended that the district's plan, or "big picture" of literacy, be developed and presented to teachers in a format that communicates how each program. school. grade level, and teacher contributes to and accomplishes literacy goals. The professional development in basic literacy has been well received and represents an enormous accomplishment for the district. Management and delivery of the professional development, however, needs to be made more consistent and available to teachers. The primary concerns voiced by teachers were scheduling problems, inadequate space and availability of training for the numbers of teachers needing to be trained, retraining for teachers who change grade levels, training for new teachers, and obtaining qualified substitutes for teachers while they attend training. The impressions of professional development communicated by upper grade teachers and those who were not implementing special "programs" were that professional development has been minimal, targeted to current "hot" topics (e.g., portfolios), and inconsistent in quality. Teachers' perceptions of the impact of literacy programs were extremely mixed. Writing and composition were literacy areas that all teachers agreed had been emphasized and improved in their schools and classrooms as a consequence of literacy initiatives in the district. Some of the positive comments relative to ELLA had more to do with the materials teachers had received as a part of the training than the new ideas they had been provided. During the focus groups, the most impressive level of agreement that teachers voiced was by teachers who had Reading Recovery teachers as Literacy Coaches in their schools. The concept of highly trained Literacy Coaches being placed in and available to all elementary schools is a national issue presently and it is recommended that the district find ways to support this concept not only in elementary schools with large at-risk populations, but in all schools in the district. Regarding student achievement, substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in LRSD. However, the differences in academic gains tend to be smaller at higher grade levels. The three-year trend in Literacy Benchmark scores shows substantial, sustained improvement in the academic achievement of African American students between 2001 and 2003. African American status of the student, as well as the percentage of African American students enrolled in a school, explain only small amounts of variance in student outcomes compared to prior achievement. No
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.