Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation

The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.
Pulaski County lnterdi tri t Magnet School Evaluation 1993-1994 Arkansas State University Center for Excellence in Education State University, AR RECEIV,=n
-la nJ - 1Jtlifr,,.J Jill_ 1 3 1995 I ::t- ?p,
r Office of Desegregation Monitoring ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I gratefully a,~knowledge the help and cooperation of MS. Donna Grady Creer, Sa
ndy Luehrs, and the Magnet Review Committee, and the administ~ators and staff of Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Scho9ls. The evaluation was made easier by the honest, forthright and candid responses from staff, administrators and faculty. An enormous debt is owed my respected colleagues for their professi9nal work and dedication to the project. Finally, thanks to my research and gradate assistants without whom this project could not have been completed. Gerald B. Dickinson, Project Director TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .. Section I. Student Achievement Standardized Tests ........... . Section II. Racial Desegregation Balance. Sociograms .. Site Visits. Section III. Magnet Theme Magnet Themes ......... . Enrollment Policies and Procedures .. Magnet School Programs. ................................. Personnel Resources .... Section IV. Summative Evaluation Summary Findings. Conclusions ..... . 1 3 29 31 61 65 66 69 70 74 77 Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 PULASKI COUNTY IN'l'ERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION November 1, 1994 Evaluation Report Format This 1993-94 school year evaluation report will follow the same format as previous reports. The design is to provide a logical and sequential accounting of the attainment of evaluation project objectives, assessment activities and evaluation reports. The report also attempts to bring together data from prior year reports to determine changes, if any, that occurred during the past evaluation periods. Section titles are written to correspond to Expected Outcomes as identified in the evaluation proposal. It should be noted that not all evaluation reports have the same evaluation objectives. Expected outcomes may vary from one project year to another based on the contribution of each component toward assurances that magnet school objectives are successfully met. Some evaluation activities may be eliminated or used during alternate years and data provided during previous or subsequent evaluations provide a degree of confidence about the attainment of specific objectives. School climate surveys were not conducted during the present project year. Principle evaluation objectives are retained in each of the project years to provide a continuous measure of magnet school objectives that are attained. Where appropriate, comparisons and contrasts are provided. Additional evaluation objectives may be added in future evaluations as the Magnet Review Committee seeks new or different data regarding the magnet school programs. 1. Student Achievement -- To obtain and analyze 1993-94 standardized test scores for the following tests for appropriate grade groups. A. Minimum Performance Tests (MPT) B. Standford Achievement Tests (SAT 8) 2. Desegregation -- To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of the magnet schools toward the "desegregation" goal of the project: A. What do enrollment data reveal about the attainment of objectives relative to student enrollment? B. What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregated groups by race and sex? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? 1 C. Is there evidence of stereotyping, graffiti, and name calling? D. What are the interactions of administrators, staff, and students, and between teachers and students? 3. Magnet Theme To provide evaluation activities to assess the existence of a sound educational core program and an existing magnet theme as provided by the magnet school program objectives. A. What are the magnet school themes available to students in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? B. Are magnet school programs available to students as prescribed by magnet school policies and procedures? C. Is there a coherent magnet program in place at each of the magnet school program sites? D. Are instructional and non-instructional personnel resources necessary to support the magnet school program in place at each of the magnet school sites? 2 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT PULASKI COUNTY IN'l'ERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Student Achievement BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives listed in the evaluation procedures relative to Student Achievement Student Achievement -- To obtain and analyze 1993-94 standardized tests scores for the following tests for appropriate grade groups. METHODOLOGY Following proper communications, data were received from the LRSD and the Arkansas Department of Education. Data were subjected to both descriptive and inferential statistical analysis using the PC computer and statistical software "Statistics With Finesse." FINDINGS Arkansas school districts are no longer required to administer the Minimum Performance Tests (MPT). The ADE does, however, require Arkansas school districts to administer the Stanford Achievement Tests in grades 4, 7 and 10. Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools administer the Stanford Achievement Tests in grades one through ten .. However, Department of Education test data are available only for the grades for which the tests are mandated (4,7,10). Test results data are reported in Mean National NCE (Normal Curve Equivalent) scores. The NCE is a standardized score based on the normal curve by setting the mean at 50 and the standard deviation at approximately 21. Because of its larger standard deviation, the range of NCE scores (0-100) is wider than for T scores (20- 80, since it is rare for a score to fall more than 3 standard deviations from the mean). (Sprinthall 1994). Test data analyses for grades not mandated by ADE for testing (1,2,3,5,6) will be accomplished by comparing the subtests mean NCE scores with the Magnet School NCE mean score, the LRSD NCE mean score and with the National NCE mean score (50). Test data analyses for grades 4,7 and 10 will include comparisons of scores for magnet students to students' scores in the LRSD, Arkansas, and the nation. Test data for the magnet schools and the state are disaggreagted by race, as well as grade and school. Weighted means (Number of students (N) for each school times (x) the mean NCE for each subtest) will be used to compute the NCE mean scores for all magnet schools. These data will be used to compare like groups in the magnets and across the state. 3 Grade One A total of 1963 Little Rock School District first grade students took the Stanford Achievement Tests in the spring of 1994. Test results data were provided for each magnet school and for th~ entire LRSD. Test data fo~ grade one are not provided for the state since the ADE does not mandate achievement testing for grade one. National data test results are not disaggregated by race. The table that follows depicts tests data analysis of the performance of magnet school first grade students compared to LRSD first grade students as a group and first grade students across the nation. School TOTL READ NAT'L 50.0 LRSD 48.1 BOOKER 44.3 CARVER 70.8 GIBBS 52.3 WLLMS 69.6 First Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\ LRSD \ National TOTL LANG ENVR BASE MATH MENT BATT 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 49.0 48.7 48.0 49.5 44.3 47.6 53.0 46.7 73.6 73.5 64.3 73.9 47.5 44.6 48.3 50.9 72.4 70.7 62.3 72.5 COMP BATT 50.0 46.6 44.7 72.5 48.3 71. 0 Williams and Carver magnets school students had higher mean NCE scores than students in the LRSD as a whole and students across the nation. The national mean is represented by the NCE scale score of 50. The graph on the following page depicts the performance of magnet school first grade students compared to the national and LRSD scores. State data were not provided because the ADE does not require administration of achievement tests at the first grade level. 4 Legend Nalonal State Booker ca"" Gibbs Wlllla-ns LASO 1()() BO 60 - 40 20 0 READ -- Graph 1 First Grade FIRST GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests ~ ,_... - - ----- ~ MAlH LANG ENVR'-"IT 5 --- - Iii BASEBATT COMPBATT Grade Two There were 1778 second grade students in the LRSD who took the Stanford Achievement Tests in the spring of 1994. The table that follows depicts data from the results of the administration of the Stanford Achievement Tests to magnet school second grade students compared to the national and LRSD scores for second grade students. School TOTL READ NAT'L 50.0 LRSD 45.2 BOOKER 43.5 CARVER 57.0 GIBBS 51. 5 WLLMS 62.5 Second Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\ LRSD \ National TOTL LANG ENVR BASE MATH MENT BATT 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 54.1 50.5 49.0 48.0 51. 6 53.6 49.1 46.3 65.1 60.9 54.8 60.0 55.5 50.6 55.6 52.9 76.9 65.2 76.2 68.5 COMP BATT 50.0 48.2 46.7 60.6 54.0 71.1 As with first grade test results, Williams and Carver magnet school students had tests scores substantially higher than the national and district averages. Second grade students at Gibbs magnet also scored higher than the LRSD and national average. More than eighty percent of the second grade students at Williams scored at or above the national average. The line graph that follows depicts NCE mean scores for second grade magnet school students compared to the national and LRSD mean NCE scores. 6 Legend Na100:i1 -- = -- Booke, -- carw -- Gibbs -- Williams ---- LASO Graph 2 Second Grade SECOND GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 0-+-----........ ------,-------,-----..--------1 FEAD LANG ENVPNNT BASEBATT eot.f'BATT 7 Grade Three There were 1789 third grade students in the LRSD who took the Stanford Achievement tests in the spring of 1994. Tests data were provided by the LRSD. The ADE does not require that school districts administer the SAT at the third grade level
therefore, .state data are not available. Magnet school third grade test data are compared to national and LRSD data in the table that follows. The subtests for which test results are reported include: Total Reading
Total Math
Total Language
Basic Battery
Science
Social Science
and Total Battery. The table that follows depicts results of the third grade achievement tests for magnet school students compared to the national and LRSD average mean NCE scores. School TOTL READ NAT'L 50.0 LRSD 46.2 BOOKER 45.6 CARVER 53.0 GIBBS 57.5 WLLMS 61. 6 Third Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\ LRSD \ National TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE MATH LANG BATT 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.7 50.5 48.4 46.3 47.5 51. 5 47.1 44.8 58.7 59.8 55.5 55.6 72.4 61. 6 64.1 62.9 65.0 67.8 65.3 63.2 SOCL TOTL SCIE BATT 50.0 50.0 51.1 48.0 48.9 46.4 58.4 55.9 69.9 65.5 68.9 65.9 Third grade students at Carver, Gibbs and Williams magnets consistently scored above the LRSD and national means. Booker students were at or just below the LRSD and national mean scores. The line graph that follows depicts tests results from the third grade SAT tests administered in the spring of 1994. 8 Legend N::11002! St:ote Booker C:m,e, Gbbs Willb.ms LASO Graph 3 Third Grade THIRD GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100 90 --- /_ - 60 c:----- 10 20 0 PEAD -- -- M'\11-1 ....... .__ - - -- - ----- LANG BASBATT SOENCE 9 -- --- ---- socsa COM'BATT Grade Four The Stanford Achievement Test is mandated by ADE for all fourth grade students in the state. In the spring of 1994 more than thirty thousand (30,621) students were tested. A total of 1721 fourth grade students in the LRSD were tested. The table that follows compares the mean NCE scores for magnet school students to the national, state, and LRSD mean NCE scores. Further, comparisons are made between like type students (blacks compared to blacks, whites compared to whites) for the magnet schools and the state. Weighted magnet school mean scores are compared to state mean scores. National test scores are not disaggregated by race. School NAT'L STATE LRSD MAGNETS BOOKER CARVER GIBBS WLLMS Fourth Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\ LRSD \AR\ National TOTL TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE SOCL READ MATH LANG BATT SCIE 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 51. 8 54.7 53.3 53.7 53.5 55.8 49.2 56.1 52.6 53.1 50.2 56.0 58.9 66.4 63.2 64.1 64.9 67.2 47.9 56.1 55.2 52.8 49.0 55.8 58.6 64.5 61. 8 62.5 64.9 69.8 61. 6 72.2 61. 0 67.3 62.8 69.0 64.6 73.3 70.3 71. 4 62.6 69.1 COMP BATT 50.0 54.1 53.1 64.9 52.8 64.3 67.9 71. 6 All magnet schools scored at or above the national and state average. Gibbs, Williams and Carver magnet school students scored well above the national, state and district average. The line graphs that follows depict the scores on the subtests for fourth grade magnet school students. Additional line graphs are used to depict the comparisons of like type students in magent schools and across the state. The national mean NCE score (50) for all students, as well as the mean NCE score for all students across the state are also included on the graph. Further, the graphs compare the mean NCE scores of magnet school students to scores for fourth grade students in the LRSD, the state and across the nation (Graph 4). The table compares scores for each of the magnets to national, state and district scores and depicts difference in mean scores. 10 Legend NAT'L - STATE LRSD - MAGNETS - Graph 4 Fourth Grade FOURTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100 80 - ~ 60 ~ jji"""" 40 20 0 READ - MATH -----~ BBATT SCIE Fourth Grade SOCSCIE Stanford Achievement Tests - by Subtests Magnet Schools\ LRSD \AR\ National Subtest Magnet National State score diff score diff score READ 58.9 50.0 8.9 51. 8 7.1 49.2 MATH 66.4 50.0 16.4 54.7 11. 7 56.1 LANG 63.2 50.0 13 .2 53.3 9.9 52.6 B BATT 64.1 50.0 14.1 53.7 10.4 53.1 SCIE 64.9 50.0 14.9 53.5 11. 4 50.2 SOC SCIE 67.2 50.0 17.2 55.8 11. 4 56.0 C BATT 64.9 50.0 14.9 54.1 10.8 53.1 11 - CBATT LRSD diff 9.7 10.3 10.6 11. 0 14.7 11.2 11. 8 The table on the previous page compared PCIMS students' scores with students' scores in the LRSD, the state and the nation on all subtests. Magnet school students scored from 8.9 points (read) to 17.2 points (social science) higher than students across the nation. PCIMS students scored 7.1 points (reading) to 11.7 points (math) higher -than students in the state and 9.7 -points (reading) to 14.7 points (science) higher than students in the LRSD. The graph below shows student scores for each of the magnet schools compared to national, state and LRSD student scores. Legend National - Stat~ - Bookor -Car-...ar - Gibbs - Williams ---- LRSO Graph 5 Fourth Grade FOURTH GRADE 100 00 ~ 00 -__..... 20 0 READ Stanford Achievement Tests - -~ - - ---- ~ - - - IIM.1H LANG B'.SBATT SCIENCE 12 - ------- -- socsa COMPB'.TT The graphs that follow compare students in the magnet schools with like-type students across the state, as well as with students (all races as a group) across the state and nation. Graph six compares test scores for black students. Graph 6 Fourth Grade FOURTH GRADE 100 80 60 - ~ __..,.- 40 ~ ,--------, 20 Legend Naticn" -- State (al) -- Magnet (B) -- State(B) -- LRSD 0 READ MATH Black Students - - LANG SCIEN:
E SOCSCIE 13 BAS BATT COMPBO.TT Graph 7 that follows compares scores for white students. Legend Natia,al State (all) Magnet (W) State t
,'I) LRSD Graph 7 Fourth Grade FOURTH GRADE 100 80 .... - 80 _.... 40 0 READ MATH White Students ---- - LANG SCl8'1CE SOCSCIE BASBATT CCMPBATT Magnet school students outperformed their counterparts across the state and did better than all students, as a group for the district the state and the nation. 14 Grade Five There were 1695 fifth grade students in the LRSD who took the Stanford Achievement Tests in the spring of 1994. The ADE does not mandate the SAT for fifth grade students and no state scores are available. The table that follows depicts the scores of magnet school students compared to the national and LRSD mean NCE scores. School TOTL READ NAT'L 50.0 LRSD 45.4 BOOKER 50.2 CARVER 51. 6 GIBBS 59.8 WLLMS 56.5 Fifth Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\ LRSD \ National TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE MATH LANG BATT 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 55.0 53.0 49.9 51. 7 66.3 57.9 57.2 58.3 59.9 58.0 55.8 63.3 67.8 64.4 63.4 62.9 71. 5 61. 7 63.4 65.0 SOCL TOTL SCIE BATT 50.0 50.0 53.0 50.3 54.8 57.4 57.3 57.3 67.2 64.9 57.5 64.0 All magnet school students scored at or above the national and LRSD average mean NCE. The graph that follows provides a visual depiction of the comparison of test scores. Data were not available to compare like-type students for grade five. Data disaggregated by race are not provided for grades for which testing is not mandated by ADE. 15 Legend National Sta~ Book ... carGibbs Wiliams LRSO Graph 8 Fifth Grade FIFTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100~-----------------------------, 00+----------------------------1 20+-------------------------- 0-+-------,-----,-------.------.-----.....--------i READ MA11-1 LANG BASBATT SCIENCE socsa COM'BATT 16 Grade Six A total of 1763 LRSD sixth grade students were administered the Stanford Achievement Tests in the spring of 1994. The ADE does not mandate that sixth grade students take the achievement tests. No state test data are available. The table and graph that follow compare the test data for magnet school students with the test data for sixth grade students in the LRSD and across the nation. School TOTL READ NAT'L 50.0 LRSD 51. 2 BOOKER 62.0 CARVER 60.2 GIBBS 63.8 WLLMS 61. 4 Sixth Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\ LRSD \ National TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE MATH LANG BATT 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 55.0 51. 6 53.3 53.5 62.5 62.1 63.9 58.0 61. 8 56.1 60.5 63.1 65.5 60.2 63.3 61.1 65.9 61.1 63.3 63.7 SOCL TOTL SCIE BATT 50.0 50.0 54.1 53.3 62.4 63.8 60.3 61. 3 66.5 63.6 62.6 63.9 Magnet school sixth grade students scored well above the LRSD and national average. Mean NCE scores for magnet students, generally were 10 points above the district and national averages. The graph that follows depicts the performance of magnet school sixth grade students compared with students in the LRSD and across the nation. 17 Legend Nalional State Book., Car'tl'ilr Gbbs Wlltams LASO Graph 9 Sixth Grade SIXTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100-,-----------------------------~ BJ-t----------------------------------1 60 ----------------------- 'I0+---------------------------------1 lD+---------------------------------1 O+-----r---------,------.------r------,----------1 fl:AD M'\TH LANG BASBATT SCIENCE socsa COM'BATT 18 Grade Seven The ADE mandates that all seventh grade students be administered the Stanford Achievement Tests. A total of 32,144 sixth grade students across the state took the SAT in the spring of 1994. There were 272 seventh grade students at Mann Junior High School who took the SAT. The tables and graphs that follow compare the mean NCE scores of students across the nation, in the state of Arkansas, the LRSD and Mann magnet school. Addtiional line graphs are provided to depict the comparisons of like-type students in magent schools and across the state. The national mean NCE score (50) for all students, as well as the mean NCE score for all students across the state are also included on the graph. School NAT'L STATE LRSD MANN Seventh Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\ LRSD \AR\ National TOTL TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE SOCL READ MATH LANG BATT SCIE 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.2 48.1 52.3 49.2 56.6 49.6 47.3 46.0 50.9 47.3 49.0 48.6 54.6 50.4 56.6 53.2 56.0 53.4 COMP BATT 50.0 50.1 47.6 53.9 Mann magnet school seventh grade students scored higher than the national, state and LRSD mean NCE on all the subtests and the basic and complete batteries. The graph that follows provides a visual comparison of the magnet school students' scores with LRSD, state, and national scores. 19 - Legerd N,t
on,i -Stale -- Ma-in - - - - LASO Graph 10 Seventh Grade SEVENTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100 80 60 - - - ~ ~ .. ---------------- ------- 40 20 0 READ M'\lH LANG 81\SBATT SOENCE socsa - COt.f'BATT Test data for seventh grade students are also disaggregated by race for the magent school and the state. The table that follows compares data for black and white magnet school students to black and white students across the state, all students (all races) in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. 20 School NAT-ALL LRSD-ALL STATE-BL MANN-BL STATE-WH MANN-WH Seventh Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\ LRSD \AR\ National TOTL TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE SOCL READ MATH LANG BATT SCIE 50.0 50.0 50 . 0 50.0 50.0 50.0 47.3 46.0 50.9 47.3 49.0 48.6 38.3 40.6 46.2 39.7 42.7 40.9 45.9 43.6 48.1 45.1 45.9 46.0 55.0 51. 9 56.6 53.4 61.1 53.4 66.4 59.3 66.0 63.9 69.7 63.4 COMP BATT 50.0 47 . 6 39.4 44.9 54.6 65.7 Mann magnet students scored from 2 points (black students-lang) to 11.4 points (white students-read) higher than their counterparts across the state on the various subtests. The graphs that follow depict differences in the NCE mean scores for like-type students across the state and the national NCE mean score for all students (50) and the LRSD mean NCE of all students. 21 Legend National -- Slat-6 -- Mann--61 ---- LASO Graph 11 Seventh Grade Black Students SEVENTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100 00 60 ---- --------- ------------ -~ -----........_ ) Z) 0 AE...O MATH UNG lll\SBATT SOENCE socsa CXll,.f'eA TT 22 Legerd National St:ii9--WHT Mann-wHT LRSD Graph 12 Seventh Grade White Students -SEVENTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100~-------------------------~ --- --- ------------ 40+-------------------------------
al 0 READ MATH LANG BASBATT SCIENCE SOC SCI 23 Grade Ten A total of 27,170 Arkansas tenth grade students took the Stanford Achievement Tests in the spring of 1994. In the LRSD there were 1,512 students who were administered the SAT. The SAT was administered to 245 tenth grade students at Parkview High School-._ The table and graph that follow depict the results of test analysis of Parkview students compared to students in the LRSD and across the state and nation. School NAT'L STATE LRSD PRKVIEW Tenth Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\ LRSD \AR\ National TOTL TOTL ENGL BASE SCIE SOCL READ MATH BATT SCIE 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 49.6 45.3 48.5 48.5 52.0 52.0 49.5 46.0 49.3 49.7 49.2 51. 5 56.8 52.3 58.0 57.3 57.6 56.6 COMP BATT 50.0 49.4 50.1 58.0 Parkview Magnet School tenth grade students' mean NCE scores were above the mean NCE scores for tenth grade students in the LRSD and across the state, and the nation. The graphs that follow depict the comparisons of Parkview Magnet School students' NCE scores with students' NCE scores across the state, with the national NCE mean score (50) and the LRSD mean NCE scores for all students. The graphs compare all students at Parkview with all students in the LRSD, state and nation. Additional graphs compare students at Parkview with like-type students across the state and all students as a group for the LRSD and the nation. 24 Le
iend Natlooal -- stal -- Park'liM" ---- LRSD Graph 13 Tenth Grade All Students TENTH GRADE 100 00 00 i---...... "'----- l ZJ 0 READ Stanford Achievement Tests - - - - - - - --- MATH LANG BASBATT SCIENCE 25 -- - SOCSCl COMPBATT 100 80 60 ...___ 40 20 Legend National.-ai -- Stal~I -- PrkvwBl 0 - - - - LASO-a.A READ Graph 14 Grade 10 Black Students TENTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests - -------- - MATH LANG BASBATT SCIENCE SOCSCl COMPBATT 26 Legend NationaH:~I -- Sta:~Wlt -- Prk'M'-Whl - - - - LASO-al 100 80 60 Graph 15 Grade 10 White Students TENTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests ~ ~ - - - r--,......___ '"" ----------------- --..
-
--- 40 20 0 READ MATH LANG BASBATT SCIENCE SOCSCI COM'BATT 27 Conclusions Grades 1-3 Carver, Gibbs and Williams magnet school students (as a group) generally scored 5-10 points higher than students in grades 1-3 in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. Booker students (as a group) in grades 1-3 scored at or above the mean scores of students in grades 1-3 across the state and the nation. Grade 4 Magnet school students (as a group) generally scored 10 points higher than fourth grade students in the LRSD, the state and the nation. Both black and white students scored well above their counterparts across the state. The disparity between black and white students' scores remains significantly high (from 14 to more than 20 NCE points). Grades 5-6 Magnet school students (as a group) in grades 5 and 6 scored 6 to 10 points higher than students in grades 5 and 6 across the state and the nation. Grade 7 Seventh grade magnet students (as a group) scored 4-6 points higher than students across the state, the LRSD and the nation. Both black and white magnet school students scored higher than like-type students across the state. The disparity between white and black students' scores remains significantly high (from 15 to 20 NCE points). Grade 10 Tenth grade magnet school students (as a group) scored higher than other tenth grade students across the LRSD, the state and the nation. Black and white magnet school students scored higher than like-type students across the state. The disparity between black student and white student scores persists in grade ten. 28 PULAKSI COUNTY IHTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Desegregation BACKGROUND The purpose of this fromative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of the objectives in Expected Outcomes, Number 2, (A, B, C, & D) as stated below. To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of the magnet schools toward the "desegregation" goals of the project: A. What is revealed by enrollment data about the attainment of objectives relative to enrollment? B. What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregated groups by race and sex? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? c. Is there evidence of sterotyping, graffiti, and name calling? D. What are the interactions of administrators, staff and students, and between teachers and students? METHODS After notification and approval of the evaluation proposal from the MRC, the research team began to develop and review instruments and procedures to collect data for assessment objectives. Enrollment, Placement and Waiting Lists. A. What is revealed by enrollment data about the attainment of objectives relative to enrollment? Findings Student racial allocations for the total enrollment for all the magnet schools is approximately 50-50 for minority and nonminority students. Additionally, a "shadow area" is designated surrounding each magnet school from which up to twenty-five percent (20%) of seats (enrollment slots) are filled. The table that follows provides the enrollment data for students on the date of the site visit as provided by the principal's office at each magnet school site. 29 DESEGREGATION SCHOOL B M \ % BOOKER 156\ ENR. 25.9 601 CARVER 173\ ENR. 28.7 601 GIBBS 85\ ENR. 28.2 301 WLLMS 137\ ENR. 28.8 475 MANN 197\ ENR. 24.4 806 PKVIEW 180\ ENR. 23.9 753 TOTAL 928\ ENR. 26.2 3537 Student Enrollment: By Race and Gender H= 3537 B F T B WM W F TW \ % \ % \ % \ % \ % 160\ 316\ 109\ 166\ 275\ 26.6 52.6 18.1 27.6 45.8 154\ 327\ 159\ 107\ 266\ 25.6 54.4 26.4 17.8 44.3 87\ 172\ 70\ 50\ 120\ 28.9 57.1 23.3 16.6 39.9 124\ 261\ 95\ 111\ 206\ 26.1 54.9 20.0 23.4 43.4 261\ 458\ 156\ 176\ 332\ 32.4 56.8 19.4 21.8 41.2 267\ 444\ 125\ 164\ 289\ 35.6 59.4 16.6 21.8 38.4 1053\ 1982\ 714\ 774\ 1488\ 29.8 56.0 20.2 21.9 42.1 OTHER \ % 10\ 1.6 8\ 1.3 9\ 3.0 8\ 1. 7 16\ 2.0 17\ 2.3 68\ 2.0 There were 1981 black students enrolled in the PCIMS accounting for 56 percent of the student enrollment. White students accounted for 42 percent of the enrollment . There were 68 students listed as "other" who accounted for two percent of the enrollment. The magnet school enrollment data reflected that 46 percent of the students were males and 52 percent were females. The remaining two percent (others) was not disaggregated by gender. Parkview Magnet School had the highest percentage of black students at 59.4 percent. However, only 9 white students were on the waiting lists for Parkview Magnet School. Booker Magnet School had the highest percentage of white students at nearly 46 percent. Conclusions PCIMS substantially met its goals with regard to enrollment, by race and gender. 30 Sociograms. B. What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregated groups by race and sex? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? Sociometric techniques used for prior evalaution activities were used for the 1993-94 evaluation project. Previous evaluations have provided a research foundation relative to the "appropriateness" and usefulness of sociograms in quantifying students' relationships. The sociogram was developed to enable the research staff to make assessments relative to student interactions in a school setting, both in and out of the classroom. Classroom relationships are assessed by the portion in which students choose other students with whom to sit near and with whom to work. Other social relationships are assessed by the portion in which the students choose other students with whom they prefer to play. Sociograms were administered in the fall and the spring. The report presents complete data from the fall administration of the sociograms. Only data from the spring administration which reflect a significant change in data from the fall administration are presented in total. The Chi-Square Test for Independence was chosen to assess and evaluate the significance of student choice patterns. Chi-Square is the most appropriate statistical test for nominal data and is used to compare categorical data such as sociometric data. The .05 level was chosen for significance (to reject the null hypothesis-- that is, there is no difference in the choice patterns of two disaggregated groups). A statistical difference is noted for inter-group probabilities of .05 or less. Contingency coefficients, which are similar to other correlation coefficients, are also provided as a measure of relationships. The PC utilizing the software package "Statistics With Finesse" was selected to analyze the data yielded by the sociograms (Bolding, 1990) . Sociogram data and conclusions drawn from previous reports were considered to compare and contrast student choice patterns where appropriate. Site visits by an evaluation team were made to gather data relative to the evaluation activities. An eight-member team consisted of professionals from Arkansas State University. Team members possessed competencies in specialty areas of elementary, secondary and physical education, early childhood education, education administration and program evaluation. 31 The purpose of the site visits was to collect data relevant to the assessment of project objectives. Each magnet school was visited by two evaluation team professionals. The project director visited all magnet school sites during the two-day visit. Visits lasted from three to four hours and included observations of classroom and non-classroom activities. Forms were developed and used to record and codify data collected during the observation visits . Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Findings A total of 858 sociograms were administered in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools during the fall of 1993. A total of 882 students completed the sociograms in the spring of 1994. Black students accounted for 54 percent of the total enrollment to which sociograms were administered. White students accounted for the remaining 46 percent. Students' race was disaggregated for only two groups -- blacks and whites. Students were also disaggregated by gender (sex). Males accounted for 48 percent of the students while females accounted for 52 percent. Student groups were further disaggregated into four subgroups: blacks males, black females, white males and white females. Disaggregated groups were contrasted and compared to assess significant differences, if any,_ in choice patterns for the subgroups. Sit With Each student chose five students in his\her classroom they would prefer to sit near. Statistical analysis of these data are presented in the tables that follow. Complete data are provided for the fall administration of the sociograms. Data for the spring administration are presented only if significant differences in choice patterns were noted. Disaggregated by Race--Black Students Compared to White Students There was a significant difference in the choice patterns of black students and white students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. For the fall administration, a ChiSquare of 27.3802 was computed which yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1759 and a Probability of 0.0001. Black students were more likely (17.6 %) than white students (7.4 %) to choose to sit by no students of the opposite race. 32 On the spring administration data revealed that black students (10.9%) continued to be more likely than white students (4.3%) to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Data for the fall administration and statistical analysis for both the fall and spring administrations are provided in the table that follows. Race Black Stud. % White Stud. % Total % Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 82 130 133 83 33 17.6 27.8 28.5 17.8 7.1 29 102 111 97 46 7.4 26.1 28.4 24.8 11.8 111 232 244 180 79 12.9 27.0 28.4 21.0 9.2 Chi-Square Test for Independence Chosen 5 6 1.3 6 1.5 12 1.4 Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 882 Chi-Square 27.3802 41. 5502 Contingency Coefficient 0.1759 0.2121 Degree of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 Disaggregated by Sex -- Males Compared to Females Sex of the student was a significant variable in the choice patterns of students choosing members of the opposite race to sit with. In the fall administration of the sociograms a Chi-Square of 12.7846 was computed producing a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1212 and a Probability of 0.0255. Almost 15 percent (14.9%) of the females but only about 11 percent (10.8%) of the males chose no students of the opposite race to sit near. In the spring administration both males and females were no more likely to choose students of the opposite race to sit with than they were during the fall administration. Nearly 12 percent (11.6%) of the males and nearly 19 percent (18.8%) of the females chose no students of the opposite race to sit with. Complete data for the fall administration and statistical anlysis of the spring administration are presented in the table that follows. 33 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Males Students Compared to Female Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Males 45 109 110 96 so 6 % 10.8 26.2 26.4 23.1 12.0 1.4 Females 66 123 134 84 29 6 % 14.9 27.8 30.3 19.0 6.6 1.4 Total 111 232 244 180 79 12 % 12.9 27.0 28.4 21.0 9.2 1.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 882 Chi-Square 12.7846 27.6661 Contingency Coefficient 0.1212 0.1744 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0255 0.0001 Black Males Compared to Black Females No significant differences in the choice patterns between black males and females were noted in analysis of the fall sociogram data. Black females (19.3 %) were more likely than black males (15.6 %) to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Analysis of the fall administration data yielded a Chi-Square of 1.8672, a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0631 and a Probability of 0.8672. Analysis of the spring administration data revealed a difference in choice patterns when comparing black males and black females. In the fall black males were more likely to choose students of the opposite race to sit with than were black females. Less than 16 percent (15.6%) of the males and more than 19 percent (19.3%) of the females chose to sit with no students of the opposite race. During the spring administration a significant difference was noted in the choice patterns of black males and black females. More than 80 percent (84.3%) of the black males chose at least one student of the opposite race to sit with. Only about 75 percent (74.9%) of the black females chose at least one student of the opposite race to sit with. The tables that follow depict the comparison of black males and black females for the fall and spring administration of the sociograms. 34 Race Black Males % Black Females % Total % Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females N=467 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 35 61 67 40 18 15.6 27.2 29.9 17.9 8.0 47 69 66 43 15 19.3 28.4 27.2 17.7 6.2 82 130 133 83 33 17.6 27.8 28.5 17.8 7.1 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Number of Observations 467 Chi-Square 1.8672 Contingency Coefficient 0.0631 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.8672 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females N=471 Number of Students of Opposite Race Race 0 1 2 3 4 Black Males 37 62 72 35 23 % 15.7 26.3 30.5 14.8 9.7 Black Females 59 72 65 30 7 % 25.1 30.64 27.7 12.8 3.0 Total 96 134 137 65 30 % 20.4 28.5 29.1 13.8 6.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Spring Number of Observations 471 Chi-Square 17.8393 Contingency Coefficient 0.1910 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0032 35 Chosen 5 3 1.3 3 1.2 6 1.3 Chosen 5 7 3.0 2 0.9 9 1.9 Black Males Compared to White Males Analysis of data from the fall administration of the sociograms reflected a significant difference in the choice patterns of black males and white males. Black males (15.6%) were more likely than white males (5.2%) to chose no students of the oposite race to sit with. Both subgroups were less likely to choose no students of the opposite race to sit with during the 1993-94 fall administration (blacks 15.6%, whites 5.2%) than in the 1992-93 fall administration (blacks 17.7%, whites 9.7%). Analysis of data from the spring administration yielded about the same results as the analysis of the fall sdministration. Data are presented in the table that follows. Race Black Males % Whites Males % Total % Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males N=416 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 35 61 67 40 18 15.6 27.2 29.9 17.9 8.0 10 48 43 56 32 5.2 28.4 27.2 17.7 6.2 45 109 110 96 50 10.8 26.2 26.4 23.1 12.01 Chi-Square Test for Independence Chosen 5 3 1.3 3 1.2 6 1.4 Fall Spring Number of Observations 416 441 Chi-Square 24.9485 23.7754 Contingency Coefficient 0.2379 0.2262 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0002 Black Males Compared to White Females No significant differences were noted in the choice patterns of black males and white females during the fall administration of the sociograms. Black males tended to be less likely to choose students of the opposite race than were white females. The same tendencies were noted for the spring adminstration
however, neither of these differences was statistically significant. 36 Data analysis comparing black males and white females are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females N=423 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Males 35 61 67 40 18 3 % 15.6 27.2 29.9 17.9 8.0 1.3 White Females 19 54 68 41 14 3 % 9.5 27.1 34.2 20.67 7.0 1.5 Total 54 115 135 81 32 6 % 12.8 27.2 31.9 19.1 7.6 1.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 423 442 Chi-Square 4.2238 10.2525 Contingency Coefficient 0.0994 0.1506 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.5177 0.0684 Black Females Compared to White Males As with other subgroups compared to white males a significant difference was noted in the choice patterns when comparing black females and white males. Only 5.2 precent of the white males chose to sit by no students of the opposite race while 19.3 percent of the black females chose not to sit with any students of the opposite race. No change in significance was noted during the spring adminstration of the sociograms. White males continued to be more likely to choose students of the opposite race to sit with than black females. Data analysis comparing black females and white males are presented in the table on the following page. 37 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males N=435 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Females 47 69 66 43 15 3 % 19.3 28.4 27.2 17.7 6.2 1.2 White Males 10 48 43 56 32 3 % 5.2 25.0 22.4 29.2 16.7 1.6 Total 57 117 109 99 47 6 % 12.8 27.2 31.9 22.8 10.8 1.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 435 440 Chi-Square 34.9977 55.3834 Contingency Coefficient 0.2729 0.3344 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 Black Females Compared to White Females No statistically significant differences were noted during the fall administration in student choice patterns when black females were compared to white females. -White females were less likely to choose no students of the opposite race than where black females. Each of the subgroups (blacks 25.1 % - whites 29.5%) was similar in choosing three or more students of the opposite race to sit near. Analysis of the spring data revealed a significant difference in choice patterns of black females and white females. The percent of white females choosing three or more students of the opposite race to sit with stayed relatively the same while the number of black students choosing three or more students to sit with declined. Data comparing black females and white females are presented in the tables on the following page. 38 Race Black % White % Total % Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females N=442 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 Females 47 69 66 43 15 19.3 28.4 27.2 17.7 6.2 Females 19 54 68 41 14 9.5 27.1 34.2 20.6 7.0 66 123 134 84 29 14.9 27.8 30.3 19.0 6.6 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Number of Observations 442 Chosen 5 3 1.2 3 1.5 6 1.4 Chi-Square 9.5344 Contingency Coefficient 0.1453 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0896 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females H=441 Humber of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 l 2 3 4 5 Black Females 59 72 65 30 7 2 % 25.1 30.6 27.7 12.8 3.0 0.9 White Females 24 46 78 44 11 3 % 11.7 22.3 37.9 21.4 5.3 1.5 Total 83 118 143 74 18 5 % 18.8 26.8 32.4 16.8 4.1 1.1 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Humber of Observations 441 Chi-Square 23.6022 Contingency Coefficient 0.2254 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0003 39 White Males Compared to White Females Significant differences were noted in student choice patterns when comparing white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. White males were less likely than white females to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Males were also more likely to choose three or more students of the opposite race to sit near. No change in the significant differences in white males and white females were noted from the spring administration of the sociograms. Analysis of data from the spring administration are presented in the table that follows . Race White Males % White Females % Total % Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females N=411 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 14 44 59 59 28 6.8 21.5 28.8 28.8 13.7 24 46 78 44 11 11.7 22.3 37.9 21.4 5.3 38 90 137 103 39 9.2 21.9 33.3 25.1 9.5 Chi-Square Test for Independence Chosen 5 1 0.5 3 1.5 4 1.0 Spring Number of Observations 411 Chi-Square 15.9034 Contingency Coefficient 0.1930 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0071 40 The table that follows summarizes the data analysis of the fall and the spring administration of the sociograms. Significant differences in student choice patterns are noted as (S). Non-significant differences are noted as (NS). Summary Student Choice Patterns Sit With STUDENT SUBGROUPS\ COMPARISON Black Students\ White Students Males \ Females Black Males \ Black Females Black Males \ White Males Black Males \ White Females Black Females \ White Males Black Females \ White Females White Males\ White Females Fall s s NS s NS s NS s * S = Significant N = Not Sign.i ficant Conclusions Spring s s s s NS s s s * White males are more likely than other student subgroups to choose students of the opposite race to sit near. * Black females are less likely than other student subgroups to choose students of the opposite race to sit near. 41 Work With Students were asked to name five other students with whom they would like to work. The narrative and tables that follow reflect the analysis of response data. Disaggregated by Race-~ Black Students Compared To White Students Data analysis revealed no significant differences in choice patterns of students with whom to work when groups were disaggregated by race. Slightly more than 14 percent (14 . 3%) of the black students and ten percent (10 %) of the white students choose no students of the opposite race to work with. The sociograms were administered to 858 students during the fall semester. A Chi-Square of 9.4940 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1046 and a probability of 0.0909. Most of the students were grouped in the choice categories of 1,2,or 3 students of the opposite race (blacks, 73.2%
white, 80. 8%). Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Stud. 67 84 149 111 47 9 % 14.3 18.0 31.9 23.8 10.1 1.9 White Stud. 39 93 120 103 28 8 % 10.0 23,8 30.7 26.3 7.2 2.0 Total 106 177 269 214 75 17 % 12.4 20.6 31.4 24.9 8.7 2.0 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 883 Chi-Square 9.4940 4.3688 Contingency Coefficient 0.1046 0.0702 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0909 0.4976 42 Disaggregated by Sex -- Males Compared to Females Student choice patterns during the fall administration of the sociograms were not signifcantly different when groups were disaggregated by sex. Females (at 13.8 %) were slightly more likely than males -(at 10.8 %) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. No changes in significance were noted after analysis of data from the spring administration of the socigrams. Data are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Sex 0 1 2 3 4 5 Males 45 85 118 114 43 11 % 10.8 20.4 28.4 27.4 10.3 2.6 Females 61 92 151 100 32 6 % 13.8 20.8 34.2 22.6 7.2 1.4 Total 106 177 269 214 75 17 % 12.4 20.6 31.4 24.9 8.7 2.0 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 883 Chi-Square 9.9613 9.9627 Contingency Coefficient 0.1071 0.1056 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0763 0.0763 43 Black Males Compared to Black Females No significant differences were noted when black males were compared to black females. During the fall administration black females (at 16. 9%) were more _ likely thcll). black males (at 11_. 6%) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. Males (at 40.2%) were more likely than females (at 31.4%) to choose at least three students of the opposite race to work with. Data relative to the choice patterns of black males compared to black females are presented in the table that follows. Complete data are presented for the fall administration of the sociograms. Only statistical analysis data are presented for the spring administration. Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females N=467 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Males 26 37 71 56 27 7 % 11.6 16.5 31.7 25.0 12.1 3.1 Black Females 41 47 78 55 20 2 % 16.9 29.3 32.1 22.6 8.2 0.8 Total 67 84 149 111 47 9 % 14.3 18.0 31.9 23.8 10.1 1.9 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 467 472 Chi-Square 7.9470 5.3664 Contingency Coefficient 0.0294 0.1060 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.1592 0.3728 44 Black Males Compared to White Males No statistically significant differences in choice patterns were noted when black males were compared to white males . White males (at 91.1%) were slightly more likely than black males (at 88.6%) to choose at least one student of the opposite race to work with during the fall administration. Complete data from the fall administration and of the sociograms and statistical anlaysis of spring data comparing black males and white males are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males N=416 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Males 26 37 71 56 27 7 % 11.6 16.5 31. 7 25.0 12.1 3.1 White Males 19 48 47 58 16 4 % 9.9 25.0 24.5 30.2 8.3 2.1 Total 45 85 118 114 43 11 % 10.8 20.4 28.4 27.4 10.3 2.6 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 416 442 Chi-Square 8.6506 3.3320 Contingency Coefficient 0.1427 0.0865 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.1238 0.6490 45 Black Males Compared to White Females No statistically significant differences were noted in students ' choice patterns for working with students of the opposite race when black males were compared to white females. Only about ten percent (11.6% of black males
10 . 1% of white females) chose no students of the opposite race to work with. A chi-Square of 7.9265 was computed for the fall administration yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1356 and a Probability of 0.1603 . Data comparing black males and white females are presented in the table that follows . Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females N=423 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Males 26 31 71 56 27 7 % 11.6 16.5 31. 7 25.0 12.1 3.1 White Females 20 45 73 45 12 4 % 10.1 22.6 36.7 22.6 6.0 2.0 Total 46 82 144 101 39 11 % 10.9 19.4 34.0 23.9 9.2 2.6 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 423 443 Chi-Square 7.92658 5.6860 Contingency Coefficient 0.1356 0.1126 Degrees of Preedom 5 5 Probability 0.1603 0.3380 46 Black Females Compared to White Males A significant difference in choice patterns for chosing students of the opposite race to work with was noted during the fall when comparing black females and white males. Black females (at 16.9%) were more likely than white males (at 9.9%) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. Analysis of data from the spring administration revealed no signifcant difference in choice patterns between black females and white males. A Chi-square of 8.6811 yielded a probability of 0.1225. Complete data from the fall administration and the spring administration are presented in the tables on the following page. 47 Race Black Females % White Males % Total % Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males N=435 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 41 47 78 55 20 19.3 28.4 27.2 17.7 6.2 19 48 47 58 16 5.2 25.0 22.4 29.2 16.7 60 95 125 113 36 13.8 21. 8 28.7 26.0 8.3 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Chosen 5 2 1.2 4 1.6 6 1.4 Number of Observations 435 Chi-Square 11.1296 Contingency Coefficient 0.1579 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0489 Sociogram -- work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males N=435 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Females 35 49 73 57 14 7 % 14.9 20.9 31.1 24.3 6.0 3.0 White Males 18 38 74 50 22 3 % 8.8 18.5 36.1 24.4 10.7 1.3 Total 53 87 147 107 36 10 % 12.0 19.8 33.4 24.3 8.2 2.3 Chi-Square Test for Independence Spring Number of Observations 440 Chi-Square 8. 6811 Contingency Coefficient 0.1391 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.1225 48 Black Females Compared to White Females No significant differences were noted in student choice patterns to work with students of the opposite race when black and white females were compared. A Chi-Square of_ 6 .. 7924 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0 .1230 and a Probabil-ity- of 0 . 2365. White females (at 10.1%) were sligthly less likely than black females (at 16.9%) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. No significant differences were noted after the spring administration of the sociograms . Complete data from the fall administration and data anaylses for the spring administration of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females N=442 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Females 41 47 78 55 20 2 % 16.9 19.3 32.1 22.6 8.2 0.8 White Females 20 45 73 45 12 4 % 10.1 22.6 36.7 22.6 7.2 2.0 Total 61 92 151 100 32 6 % 13.8 20.8 34.2 22.6 7.2 1.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 442 441 Chi-Square 6.7924 3.8945 Contingency Coefficient 0.1230 0.0936 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.2365 0.5647 49 White Males Compared to White Females No significant differences were noted in the choice patterns of students to name students of the opposite race to work with when -comparing white males and white females. Both males (at 91. 9% ). and females (at 89.1%) were likely to name at least one student of the opposite race to work with . A Chi-Square of 7.8451 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient 0.1402 and a - Probability of 0.1650. No significant differences were noted in the choice patterns of white males and white females after the spring administration of the sociograms. Complete data for the fall administration and data analysis of the spring administration of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females N=391 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Males 19 48 47 58 16 4 % 9.9 25.0 24.5 30.2 8.3 2.1 Females 20 45 73 45 12 4 % 10.1 22.6 36.7 22.6 6.0 2.0 Total 39 93 120 103 28 8 % 10.0 23.8 30.7 26.3 7.2 2.0 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of ObservationDatas 391 411 Chi-Square 7.8451 7.4437 Contingency Coefficient 0.1402 0.1334 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.1650 0.1897 50 The table below summarizes the relationships between the student subgroups with regard to the preferences in working with students of the opposite race. Summary Student Choice Patterns Work With STUDENT SUBGROUPS\ COMPARISON Black Students\ White Students Males \ Females Black Males \ Black Females Black Males \ White Males Black Males \ White Females Black Females \ White Males Black Females \ White Females White Males\ White Females Fall NS NS NS NS NS s NS NS * S = Significant N = Not Significant Conclusions Spring NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS * Only black females were less likely to choose students of the opposite race to work with when compared to other subgroups
however, that difference was noted only during the fall administration. - * Generally, magnet school students tend to choose students of the opposite race to work with without regard to sex or race. 51 Play With In order to further assess the social interactions of students the sociogram asked students to name five other students with whom they w~uld prefer to play. Disaggregated by Race -- Blacks Compared to Whites Student choice to play with students of the opposite race was dependent upon race. Black students (at 25.5%) were more than three times as likely as white students (at 8.7%) to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 68.9028 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2726 and a Probability of 0.0001. Complete data for the fall administration and data analysis for the spring administration are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Stud. 119 141 124 57 22 4 % 25.5 30.2 26.6 12.2 4.7 0.9 White Stud. 34 97 112 97 39 12 % 10.0 23,8 30.7 26.3 7.2 2.0 Total 153 238 236 154 61 16 % 17.8 27.7 27.5 17.9 7.1 1.9 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 882 Chi-Square 68.9028 80.8000 Contingency Coefficient 0.2726 0.2897 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 52 Disaggregated by Sex -- Males Compared to Females Student choice patterns for naming students of the opposite race to play with are dependent on sex. A significant difference was noted. Analysis of data for -the fall administration -.of the . sociograms resulted in a Chi-Square of 2T.6497 which yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1767 and a Probability of 0.00-01. - Both males and females were more likely to choose no students of the opposite race in the spring than in the fall. Males were signifcantly more likely to chose students of the opposite race to play with than were females during the spring administration of the sociograms. Female students (fall-22.9%, spring-26.3%) were nearly twice as likely as males (fall-12.5%, spring-17.0%) to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. Complete data from the fall administration and data analysis from the spring administration are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Sex 0 1 2 3 4 5 Males 52 112 117 82 41 12 % 12.5 26.9 28.1 19.7 9.9 2.9 Females 101 126 119 72 20 4 % 22.9 28.5 26.9 16.3 4.5 0.9 Total 153 238 236 154 61 16 % 17.8 27.7 27.5 17.9 7.1 1.9 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 882 Chi-Square 27.6497 33.2581 Contingency Coefficient 0.1767 0.1906 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 53 Black Males Compared to Black Females Black males (at 82.9%) were significantly more likely to choose at least one student of the opposite race to play with than were black females (at 67.5%). Analysis of the data resulted in a Chi-Square of 21.3018 which yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2089 and a Probability of 0.0007. Data analysis for the spring administration also resulted in a significant difference in the choice patterns of black males and black females. Complete data for the fall administration and data analysis for the spring administration of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows. Race Black Males % Blavk Females % Total % Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females N=467 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 40 63 76 30 12 17.9 28.1 33.9 13.4 5.4 79 78 48 27 10 32.5 32.1 19.8 11.1 4.1 119 141 124 57 22 25.5 30.2 26.6 12.2 4.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence Chosen 5 3 1.3 1 0.4 4 0.9 Fall Spring Number of Observations 467 471 Chi-Square 21.3018 21. 6472 Contingency Coefficient 0.2089 0.2096 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0007 0.0006 54 Black Males Compared to White Males A significant difference was noted in student choice patterns when comparing black males and white males. White males (at 93.7%) were much more likely to choose at least one member of the opposite race to play with than were black males (at -82.1%). Analysis of the fall data resulted in a Chi-Square of 41.0295 yielding -a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2996 and a Probability of 0 . 0001. Data analysis for the spring administration of the sociograms also resulted in significant difference in the choice patterns of black males and white males. These data and analysis of the spring administration data are presented in the table that follows. Race Black Males % White Males % Total % Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males N=416 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 40 63 76 30 12 17.9 28.1 33.9 13.4 5.4 12 49 41 52 29 6.3 25.5 21.4 27.1 15.1 52 112 117 82 41 12.5 26.9 28.1 19.7 9.9 Chi-Square Test for Independence Chosen 5 3 1.3 9 4.7 12 2.9 Fall Spring Number of Observations 416 441 Chi-Square 41.0295 44.2486 Contingency Coefficient 0.2996 0.3020 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 55 Black Males Compared to White Females Black males were not signifcantly different from white females in their tendencies for choosing students of the opposite race to play with. White females (at 11.1%) were slightly less likely than black males (at 17.9%) to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. - No significant changes were noted for the spring administration. Data for the fall administration and analysis for the spring administration of the sociograrns are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females N=423 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Males 40 63 76 30 12 3 % 17.9 28.1 33.9 13.4 5.4 1.3 White Females 22 48 71 45 10 3 % 11.1 24.1 35.7 22.6 5.0 1.5 Total 62 111 147 75 22 6 % 14.7 26.2 34.8 17.7 5.2 1.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 423 442 Chi-Square 9.1592 9.8984 Contingency Coefficient 0.1456 0.1480 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.1029 0.0782 56 Black Females Compared to White Males Significant differences were noted in student choice patterns in naming students of the opposite race to play with when comparing black females and white males. Black females (at 32.5%} were five times more likely than white males (at 6.3%} to name no students of the opposite race to play with. Analysis of the data produced a Chi-Square of 75.1234 yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.3838 and a Probability of 0.0001. Data for the fall administration and analyses of data for the spring administration of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males N=435 NUmber of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Females 79 78 48 27 10 1 % 32.5 32.1 19.8 11.1 4.1 0.4 White Males 12 49 41 52 29 9 % 6.3 25.5 21.4 27.1 15.1 4.7 Total 91 127 89 79 39 10 % 20.9 29.2 20.5 18.2 9.0 2.3 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 435 440 Chi-Square 75.1234 92.9758 Contingency Coefficient 0.3838 0.4175 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 57 Black Females Compared to White Females In choosing to play with students of the opposite race, race was a significant variable when comparing females. Black females (at 32.5%) were almost three times -as likely to choose no students_of the opposite race as white females (at 11.1%). Analysis of the data from the fall administration produced a CpiSquare of 45.3256 yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.3050 and a Probability of 0.0001. Data from the spring administration resulted in no changes in significance. Data from the fall administration and analysis of the spring administration are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females N=442 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Females 79 78 48 27 10 1 % 32.5 32.1 19.8 11.1 4.1 0.4 White Females 22 48 71 45 10 3 % 11.1 24.1 35.7 22.6 5.2 1.5 Total 101 126 119 72 20 4 % 22.9 28.5 26.9 16.3 4.5 0.9 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 442 441 Chi-Square 45.3256 49.3999 Contingency Coefficient 0.3050 0.3174 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 58 White Males Compared to White Females Gender was a significant variable in choosing students of the opposite race to play with when comparing white males and white females. Females (at 11.1%) were more likely than males (at 6.3%) to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. Analysis of the fall data produced a Chi-Square of 23.6310 yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2387 and a Probability of 0.0003. Analysis of the spring data produced a Chi-Square of 24.9176 yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2391 and a Probability of 0.0001. Data from the fall administration and analysis of the data from the spring adminstration of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows . Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females N=391 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 White Males 12 49 41 52 29 9 % 9.9 25.0 24.5 30.2 8.3 2.1 White Females 22 48 -71 45 10 3 % 11.1 24.1 35.7 22.6 5.0 1.5 Total 34 97 112 97 39 12 % 8.7 24.8 28.6 24.8 10.0 3.1 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of ObservationDatas 391 411 Chi-Square 23.6310 24.9176 Contingency Coefficient 0.2387 0.2391 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0003 0.0001 59 The table below summarizes the comparisons relative to the choice patterns of students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. Summary - student Choice Patterns - Play With STUDENT SUBGROUPS\ COMPARISON - Fall Black Students \ White Students s Males \ Females s Black Males \ Black Females s Black Males \ White Males s Black Males \ White Females NS Black Females \ White Males s Black Females \ White Females s White Males\ White Females s N = Not Significant Conclusions Spring s s s s NS s s s * Both race and sex are significant variables when students choice patterns for playing with students of the opposite race are compared. * No changes in choice patterns were noted from the fall to the spring administratios of the socigrams. 60 Site Visits. The evaluation team recorded data during the site visits to each of the magnet schools. Observation forms were constructed to gather data relative to students' actions and interactions during non-instructional time. The items relating to non-instructional activities and responses are listed below. The number of responses for items will vary since not all observers were assigned to the same activities. Student Isolation B. Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? Playground Observation 1. Do students tend to play together without regard to race or sex? Observers recording "yes" Observers recording "no" 8 2 2. Is there evidence of isolation or solidarity based on student race or sex? Observers recording "yes" Observers recording "no" Stereotyping, Graffiti and Name Calling 1 11 C. Is there evidence of stereotyping, graffiti and name calling? 3. Were there inappropriate or offensive racial and sexual behaviors or language observed during playground activities? Observers recording "yes" Observers recording "no" 0 12 4. Is there inappropriate racial or sexual graffiti on walls, hall, or other places in the school? Observers recording "yes" Observers recording "no" 61 0 12 Conclusions * Students generally appeared to play together without regard to race and sex. Only 1 observer recorded seeing any evidence of isolation and\or solidarity. * No racially or sexually offensive behaviors, language or graffiti were observed during the site visits . Interactions of students, staff and teachers D. What are the interactions of administrators, staff and students, and between teachers and students? Several items were included on the observation form to assess student, teacher and staff interactions during classroom and cafeteria activities. The number of responses for each item will not be equal. Classroom Observations 1. Describe the seating arrangements (integrated, segregated). Observers recording "integrated" 14 Observers recording "segregated" 0 2. When activities are appropriate do students work together without regard to race or sex? Observers recording "yes" Observers recording "no" 10 1 3. Is there evidence of isolation and solidarity as exhibited by students behaviors? Observers recording "yes" Observers recording "no" Observers recording "some" 1 12 1 4. Are teacher interactions appropriately directed toward students of both sexes and all races? Observers recording "yes" Observers recording "no" 12 0 5. Is there any noticeable difference, based on race or sex, in student initiated interactions with the teacher? Observers recording "yes" Observers recording "no" 62 : 0 :12 Conclusions * Classroom seating arrangements were integrated and students appeared to work together without regard to race and sex. * No apparent differences based on race or sex were noted in student\teacher interactions. Cafeteria Observations 1. Are student seating arrangements based on student choice or by assignment? Observers recording "choice" 7 Observers recording "assignments" 2 2 . Did teachers remain with students while students ate? Observers recording "yes" Observers recording "no" 1 8 3. Did teachers remain with students while they (teachers) ate? Observers recording "yes" Observers recording "no" 1 7 4 . Was there any visible distinction by race\sex for students who ate free lunch or paid full price? Observers recording "yes" Observers recording "no" 0 10 5. Was the cafeteria staff composed of adults of proportional white and black races? Observers recording "yes" Observers recording "no" 8 1 6. Were cafeteria staff interactions with students appropriate and without regard to race and sex? Observers recording "yes" Observers recording "no" Conclusions 8 0 * Student seating was generally by choice during lunchroom activities. No distinctions were noted between students who paid and those who did not. * Cafeteria staffs were generally composed of adults of proportional black and white races. 63 I Staff Interactions 1. Did staff appear to work together without regard to race and sex? Observers recording "yes" Observers recording "no" 10 0 2. Did staff appear t o ass ociate without regard t o race or sex during non-assigned times or activities? Observers recording "yes" Observers recording "no" Conclusions 10 0 * The certified staff appeared to associate and work t ogether without regard to race or sex . 64 MAGNET THEME PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Magnet Theme BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives in Expected- outcomes
Number .3, (A, B, C, & D), listed below. To provide evaluation activities to assess the existence of a sound educational core program and an existing magnet theme as provided by the magnet school program objectives . A. What are the magnet school themes available to students in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? B. Are magnet school programs available to students as provided by magnet school policy and procedures? C. Is there a coherent magnet theme in place at each of the magnet school program sites? D. Are instructional and non-instructional personnel resources necessary to support the magnet school program in place at each of the magnet school sites? METHODS Data were furnished to the evaluator by the Magnet Review Office and the principal's office at each of the magnet schools. Enrollment and staffing data reflect the number of students and staff at each site at the time of the site visit by the evaluation team. FINDINGS A. Magnet School Themes: What are the magnet school themes available in the Pulaksi County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? The Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Programs offer a variety of magnet school themes at the elementary level. One junior high program and one senior high magnet school program are also offered. Booker Arts Magnet School provides a curriculum that emphasizes the interrelationship of the elementary curriculum and the arts. The program intends to provide an education that fosters academics and aesthetic growth of students who express an interest and/or a need in the arts. 65 I Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet School provides educational experiences that help each child to obtain a mastery of the basic skills curriculum. Additional emphasis is placed on a hands-on approach to math and science education . Gibbs Magnet School of International Studies and Foreign Language ' provides educational experiences that expand and enhance the multi-ethnic core curriculum through the infusion 0f international studies and foreign languages. The intent of the program is to assist each child in acquiring the skills needed to function as a citizen of the world. Language specialties begin at the kindergarten level. Williams Basic Skills Magnet School is a high-performance, high expectations elementary school offering a program for grades K-6, promoting a highly structured, disciplined approach to academic behavior. Strong emphasis is place on mastery of basic skills at the student's instructional level. The school is designed for students who learn well in a highly structured environment and are highly motivated by competition in all program areas. Horace Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet School is a junior high school (grades 7,8,& 9) offering two different curricular programs, the School of Science and the School of Arts . Students should have a strong interest in or aptitude for the area of the magnet curriculum in the school for which he/she applies. Parkview Arts / Science Magnet High School provides expanded and specialized studies in the arts and sciences, in addition to the standard academic curriculum. The science magnet program offers a wide range of advanced courses. The arts curriculum provides studies in music, drama, visual arts, and dance. B. Enrollment: Are magnet school programs available to students as prescribed by magnet school policies and procedures? Magnet school enrollments are allocated among the three participating districts, Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County Special, by percentage of total enrollment in each district. The enrollment percentage allotments by district are as follows: Little Rock: North Little Rock: Pulaski County Special 43 % 42 % 15 % 42 % 43 % 66 Elementary Secondary a maximum of 100 students may attend Parkview Elementary Secondary The table that follows shows the number of seats remaining and the number of students on the waiting lists for each magnet school and from each of the districts. Complete data on all magnet schools were not available at the time of this report. Magnet Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Mann-arts Mann-sci Prkvw-arts Prkvw-sci Magnet Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Mann-arts Mann-sci Prkvw-arts Prkvw-sci blk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Little Rock Seats \ Wai t ing Lists Seats Remaining wht tot blk 0 0 26 0 0 32 1 1 16 1 1 10 0 0 20 0 0 11 5 5 9 2 2 0 No. Waiting wht 10 40 1 8 3 9 2 0 Pulaski County Special School District Seats\ Waiting Lists Seats Remaining No. Waiting blk wht tot blk wht 3 15 18 22 12 3 1 4 12 19 5 7 12 4 0 9 3 12 5 13 0 0 0 31 17 0 0 0 10 32 32 30 62 19 5 10 12 22 6 2 67 List tot 36 72 17 18 23 20 11 0 List tot 34 31 4 8 48 42 24 8 II Magnet blk Booker * Carver * Gibbs * Williams * Mann-arts * Mann-sci * Prkvw-arts * Prkvw-sci * Little Rock School District Seats\ Waiting Lists Seats Remaining No. wht - tot blk * * 214 * * 190 * * 112 * * 29 * * * * * * * * * * * * Waiting List wht tot 126 340 88 278 73 185 14 43 * * * * * * * * * Data incomp1ete at reporting time Findings * There were only a few seats for magnet school students unfilled for both the North Little Rock District and Pulaski County School District. The Pulaski County School District had more seats that remained unfilled at the secondary level. * The Little Rock School district had the greatest number of students (black and white) on magnet school waiting lists. Conclusions * Considerable efforts are undertaken by all three school districts and the Magnet Review Committee to maintain an acceptable balance between the number of magnet school seats available and the number of students on the waiting lists. * Unfilled magnet seats may result from the natural "lag" time between requests for student assignment and time required for administrative operations to fill vacant seats. 68 c. Coherent Magnet Program: Is there a coherent magnet program in place at each of the magnet school program sites? A total of thirty (30) different classrooms were visited by the evaluation team. - Classes visited by subject were: Art 3 Foreign Language 2 Dance 2 Language Arts 7 Math 4 Basic Skills 3 Music 2 Social Studies 4 Science 3 Every item may not have been marked by the evaluator and the totals for every item will not be equal . Item# 2: Classroom space and equipment appear to be appropriate for the magnet theme, this particular class and class activities: (YES 22
NO .Q.Q.) . Item# 3: Bulletin Boards (displays, posters, banners, ie .. ) reflect a magnet theme: (YES 19
NO 02). Item# 4: Non-text materials and resources are available in the classroom that support the magnet theme: (YES 25
NO 02). Item# 5: ( 2) ( 2) (16) ( 9) ( 0) ( 2) Presentation: (check one): lecture student presentation guided practice independent study test other 69 D. Instructional and Non-Instructional Personnel: Are instructional and non-instructional personnel resources in place at each of the magnet school sites? Certified Staff. There were 295 certified staff at the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools. Whites accounted for more than 66 percent of the total staff with blacks accounting f or nearly 33 percent of the total certified staff. Those classified as "others" accounted for one percent. The table that follows depicts data relative to certified staff . SCHOOL B M \% BOOKER 3\ Tot. 6.0 50 CARVER 0\ Tot. 00.0 43 GIBBS 1\ Tot. 3.3 30 WLLMS 1\ Tot. 2.8 37 MANN 14\ Tot. 21.2 66 PKVIEW 6\ Tot. 8.7 69 TOTAL 25\ 295 8.5 Certified Staff: By Race and Gender N= 295 B F T B WM W F T W \ % \ % \ % \ % \ % 15\ 18\ 4\ 27\ -31 \ 30.0 36.0 8.0 54.0 62.0 11\ 11\ 1\ 31\ 32\ 25.6 25.6 2.3 72 .1 74.4 8\ 9\ 1\ 20\ 21\ 26.7 30.0 3.3 66.7 70.0 9\ 10\ 0\ 27\ 27\ 24.3 27.0 0.0 73.0 73.0 12\ 26\ 8\ 32\ 40\ 18.2 39.4 12.1 48.5 60.6 16\ 22\ 13\ 32\ 45\ 23.2 31.9 18.8 46.4 65.2 71\ 96\ 27\ 169\ 196\ 24.1 32.6 9.2 57.3 66.4 70 OTHER \ % 1\ 2.0 0\ 0.0 0\ 0.0 0\ 0.0 0\ 0.0 2\ 2.9 3\ 1.0 Classified Staff. There were 120 classified staff members employed by Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools. Blacks accounted for more than 68 percent. Males accounted for nearly 28 percent of the classified employees with females accounting for 70 percnt of the employees. Others accounting for two percent of the total classified employees were not disaggregated by gender. Data were provided by the principal's office at each of the magnet school sites and represent the number of employees at the time of the site visit. No record of changes during the years were provided to the evaluation team members. The table that follows depicts the data for each school provided to the evaluation team relative to the classified employees. SCHOOL B M \ % BOOKER 4\ Tot. 19 21.4 CARVER 5\ Tot. 21 23.8 GIBBS 3\ Tot. 16 18.8 WILLMS 2\ Tot. 13 15.4 MANN 8\ Tot. 2 36.4 PKVIEW 8\ Tot. 29 27.6 TOTAL 30\ 120 25.0 Classified Staff: By Race and Gender N= 120 B F T B w M W F \ % \ % \ % \ % 12\ 16\ 0\ 2\ 63.2 84.2 0.0 10.5 10\ 15\ 0\ 6\ 47.6 71.4 0.0 28.6 9\ 12\ 0\ 3\ 56.3 75.0 0.0 18.8 7\ 9\ 1\ 3\ 53.8 69.2 7.7 23.1 6\ 14\ 1\ 6\ 27.3 63.6 4.5 27.3 8\ 16\ 1\ 12\ 27.6 55.2 3.4 41.4 52\ 82\ 3\ 32\ 43.3 68.3 2.5 26.7 71 T w OTBER \ % \ % 2\ 1\ 10.5 5.2 6\ 0\ 28.6 0.0 3\ 1\ 18.8 6.3 4\ 0\ 30.8 o.o 7\ 1\ 31. 8 4.5 13\ 0\ 44.8 o.o 35\ 3\ 29.2 2.5 Evaluation team member comments. The following statements by evaluation team members were recorded on the Magnet Theme Observation Document, Class Demograhpics, Item# 8: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Class projects support the fine arts theme. Instruction was fast paced and appropriate. Teacher seems to have great rapport. Learning centers greatly enhance instruction. Teacher planned activities support the magnet theme. Students were allowed to be creative and to think. Excellent demonstration of students cooperating together in a learning environment. Students very involved in learning - lots of interactions regarding multicultural concepts. Students seem to know what to do and they do it. The student interaction was so obvious and so positive. One could not help but to feel that these students will be excellent leaders in the future. One could sense a high level of thinking going on. These students interacted in a manner that suggested that this clearly goes beyond the classroom. The teacher and the students were on task at all times. Students seemed well aware of procedures and were able to do independent work with a minimal amount of supervision. The magnet theme was indeed evident in the classroom. 72 Conclusions Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools provide a variety of magnet themes and educational settings at the elementary level. Junior high and senior high magnet schools are also provided. Student enrollment is fairly consistent in terms of the numbers of minorities and non-minorities. All schools had a majority _of black students. The magnet schools total minority enrollment was 56 percent. White students accounted for 42 percent and students classified as "other" accounted for two percent. The majority of certified staff at all Pulaski County Interdistrict Schools were non-minorities. Minorities accounted for 32 percent of the staff and those classified as "others" accounted for one percent of the certified staff. Over 68 percent of the classified staff were minorities. Nonminorities accounted for just over 29 percent and those classified as "others" accounted for slightly more than two percent . Conclusions based on interviews with school administrators and staff, student enrollment data, and the numbers and percentages for certified and classified staff relative to race and gender, the composition of the magnet schools has not changed greatly during the past several years. 73 SUMl1ATIVE EVALUATION PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Summative Evaluation: Expected outcomes BACKGROUND The purpose of the summative evaluation is to make an overall assessment with regard to the total magnet school program. The scope of this evaluation covers magnet school objectives relative to student achievement, desegregation, and magnet theme. METHODOLOGY Conclusions are drawn from insights gained from the review of the literature, previous magnet school evaluations and data collected during the current school year. Valuable data were furnished by Arkansas Department of Education, the Little Rock School District and the office of the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. SUMMARY FINDINGS Student Achievement * Grades 1-3 Magnet school students scored above the national mean on standardized achievement tests. * Grade 4 Magnet school students (as a group) scored above other fourth grade students in the nation, the state and the LRSD. Both black and white students scored higher than their counterparts across the state. The disparity between magnet school white students' and black students' scores ranges from 14 to more than 20 NCE points. * Grades 5-6 Magnet school students (as a group) scored 6 - 10 NCE points higher than other students in grades five and six across the state and nation. 74 * Grade 7 Magnet school students (as a group) scored higher than other seventh grade students across the nation, the state and the LRSD. Both black and white magn~t school students scored higher than like-type students across the state. The disparity between magnet school white students' and black students' scores ranges from 15 to more than 20 NCE points. * Grade 10 Magnet school students (as a group) scored higher than other tenth grade students across the nation, state and the LRSD. Both black and white magnet school students scored higher than like-type students across the state. The disparity between black and white students' scores persists in grade ten. 75 Desegregation * Sociograms Students' choice patterns for choosing students of the opposite race to sit with are generally dependent upon race. Students' choice patterns for choosing students of the opposite race to play with are generally dependent upon race. Students' choice patterns for choosing students of the opposite race to work with are not dependent on race. * Site visits -- Students appeared to play together without regard to race. No apparent differences relative to race were noted in interactions between students, teachers and\or other staff. The certified staff appeared to work together without regard to race or sex. 76 Magnet Theme * Program Pulaksi County Interdistrict Magnet Schools manifes_t compelling evidence of providing a sound educational core and a coherent magnet theme in each of the magnet schools as ~rovided by the magnet school objectives.: * Accessibility -- A high level of effort is maintained by the schools and the office the Magnet Review Committee to maintain full enrollment at the vairous magnet schools. Enrollment data provide evidence that magent themes are appropriate and student that access is provided. Magnet school placement waiting lists attest to the desirability for attendance at Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools. CONCLUSIONS * Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools continue to manifest compelling evidence of fulfilling their purposes and expectations. 77 APPENDIX PULAKSI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS SITE DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT School- ------- Grade- ---- Teacher- ------- Evaluation team member -------- Classroom Observation: l. Describe seating arrangement. (integrated, segregated: by race, by sex) 2. When activities are appropriate do students work together without regard to race or sex? If no, describe. 3. Is there evidence of isolation and solidarity as exhibited by students behavior? If yes, is this evidence conspicuous by race or sex? 4. Are teacher interactions appropriately directed toward students o! both sexes and all races? If no, describe. 5. Is there any noticeable difference, based on race or sex, in student initiated interactions with the teacher? If yes, describe. --- 6. Other pertinent comments regarding classroom activities. Cafeteria (Lunch) Observation: 1. Are student seating arrangements based on student choice or by assignment? If by choice, are there clear patterns of student choice by race or sex? 2. Did teachers remain with student's while students were eating? -=-r-..,,....,,- If not, was there any discernable behavior difference among students based on race or sex? 3. Did teachers remain with students while they (teachers) were eating? ___,.----,,-- If not, were seating patterns apparent among teachers? By race? By sex? 4. Was there any visible distinction by race or sex in treatment of, or behavior of, students who ate free lunch, paid full price or brought their lunch? If yes, please describe? 5. Was the cafeteria staff composed of adults of proportional white and black races? If not, describe. ------ 6. Were cafeteria staff interactions with students appropriate and without regard to race or sex? If not, describe. ------ 7. Other pertinent comments. Playground Observation (noon, or recess): 1. Do students tend to play together without regard to race or sex? If no, describe. 2. Is there evidence of isolation or solidarity based on student race or sex? If yes, describe. --------------------- 3. Were there inappropriate or offensive racial or sexual behaviors or language observed during playground activities? I f yes, des-cr-ibre:. ------------------------- 4. Is there inapropriate racial or sexual graffiti on walls, halls, or other places in the school? If yes, describe. -------- Staff Interactions: 1. Did staff appear to work together without regard to race or sex? --,---r-------------------------- I f no, explain. 2. Did staff appear to associate without regard to race or sex during non-assigned times or activities? _____ _ If no, explain. overall Generalization: 1. Is there distinct coherence between the magnet theme and the schools curriculum and instructional activities? Does the magnet school actually deliver what is advertised, that is, to what degree the school offers any unique, quality elements in its curriculum and program? Magnet Theme Observations l. Class type (lesson) and magnet theme: Class type (Eng.- Math, ie .. ) Magnet theme (same as #4,p.l) 2. Classroom space and equipment appear to be appropriate for the magnet theme, this particular class and class activities: (yes _ no _ ) 3. Bulletin Boards (displays, posters, banners, ie ) reflect magnet theme: (yes _ no _ ) 4. Non-text materials and resources are available in the classroom that support the magnet theme: (yes _ no _ ) 5. Presentation: (check one) lecture: student presentation: guided practice: independent work: test: other: s. Reference to magnet theme (ie .. specific menti~n in teacher or student presentation, assignments, and other activities): ::please try to observe for 20 uninterrupted minutes):: l. _______________________________ _ 2. _______________________________ _ 3. _____________________________ _ 4. ____________________________ _ s. ____________________________ _ 6. _______________________________ _ ?. _____________________________ _ 1. Observer: OBSERVATION DOCUMENT Class Demographics Date: 2. School.: 3. Teacher: .lliQ ~El " Magnet Theme: s. Grade: 6. Number\Race Students: Totals: Black Students White students Other Races Boys: Girls: sex: race: Black Males: White Males: Black Females: White Females: others: F B M w ,. Classroom Seating Arrangements: Assignment: (check one) Assigned _ Unassigned _ By race: (check one) segregated _ integrated _ By gender: (check one) segregated_ integrated _ a. other comments about class demographics: SITE DATA RECORD Site Demographics Date: ----- l. School: 2. Principal: ______ _ ------- 3. Magnet Theme: ______ _ 4. Number/Race of Students Totals: Black Students White Students Others Males Females sex: race: Black Males White Males Black Females White Females Others 5. Certified/Instructional Staff: Black Males White Males Totals: Black Staff White Staff Others Males Females Black Females White Females Others F B 6. Classified Staff (custodial, food services, aids) Black Males White Males Black Females White Females Others Totals: Blacks Whites Others Males Females M w Playground Observation 1. Student play activities were: ( directed not directed 2. If student play is not directed students tend to: choose playmates (without with choose playmates (without= with-- regard to race
regard to gender. 3. There (was was not ) evidence of isolation or solidarity during playground activities. 4. Students (were were not ) observed using racial slurs or inappropriate language during play time. Lunchroom Observation 1. Seating arrangements for eating were based on (choice _ assignment _ ) 2. If seating arrangements were by choice students tended to: choose seat mates (without with choose seat mates (without= with-- regard to race
regard to gender. 2. Teachers (remained did not remain _ ) with students while students were eating. 3. Teachers (remained did not remain ) with students while they (teachers) were eating. 4. There (was was not ) any visible distinction by race for students who ate free lunch or paid full price. 5. The cafeteria staff was composed of: Black Males White Males Black Females White Females Others 6. There (were were not ) any offensive or racial language or behaviors observed during the lunch period. 7. There (was was not ) any racial graffiti observed on walls in the hall, bathrooms or other places in the building. E1/,\LUA'!'ING SOCIAL DEVELOPME~IT SOCIOGRAM St:1.!c:er::: Name ---------------- dace ____ _ Ci:-cle each grade that you have attended at thi s school: K l 2 3 4 5 6 Du=ing the next few weeks we may be re-assign~ng seats, worki~g i~ small groups and playing in class and C
c~e playground. The purpose at this torm is to help me dec~de whic~ of you work and play best together. You can do th~s by writing the names ot children you would like to have sit near you. to have work with you, and to have play with you. Ycu may choose anyone in this room you wish. including pupils who are absent. Your choices will net be seen by any other student. Give the first name and the initial at last name . Make your choices carefully so the groups will be the way you really want them. Remember! l. Your choices must be from pupils in this room. including those who are absent. 2. You should give the first name and initial ot the last J. Ynaomu es. hould make all tive choices tor each question. 4. You may choose a pupil tor more than one group it you wish. 5. Your choices will not be ~een by anyone else. I would choose to sit near these children: 1. ___________ _ 3. ____________ _ 2. __________ _ 4. _____________ _ 5. I would choose to work with these children: 3. l. 4. 2. 5. I would choose to play with these children: 3. l. 4. 2. 5. SCHOOL: BOOKER ELEMENTARY NUMBER GRADE/RACE TESTED 1 TOTAL 78 B 40 w J8 0 0 2 TOTAL 80 8 41 w J4 0 5 3 TOTAL 83 B 46 w J6 0 1 4 TOTAL 8) B 45 w JO 0 0 5 TOTAL 91 B 48 w 39 0 4 6 TOTAL 89 B 47 w 42 0 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION PERCENTILE RANK/NORKJ\L CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1994 ENVIRONMENT TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL READING KATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE )9/44.J J9/44.J 46/47.6 56/5J.O 27/J7.J 28/)7.9 JJ/40.5 42/45.6 54/52.1 5J/51.4 60/55.3 70/61.2 -- -- -- -- J8/4J.5 5J/51. 6 57/5J.6 48/49.1 18/J0.7 JO/J9.2 JJ/40.6 29/J8.4 60/55.4 74/6J.4 77/65.5 69/60.6 84/70.5 91/78.5 96/85.7 69/60.7 42/45.6 45/47.5 53/51. 5 40/44.8 48/48.9 27/J7.2 J5/41. 7 41/45.1 25/J5.9 35/42.1 61/56.0 59/54.8 67/59.4 61/55.6 64/57.5 6J/57.0 54/52.1 75/64.2 77/65.6 54/52.1 46/47.9 61/56.l 60/55.2 48/49.0 61/55.B 28/J7.9 49/49.4 44/46. 7 31/39.3 47/48.6 68/59.8 75/64.0 76/65.1 69/90.4 75/64.J -- -- -- -- -- 50/50.2 78/66.J 65/57.9 65/58.3 59/54.8 31/J9.6 67/59.1 52/51. 2 45/47.2 41/45.J 70/61.2 86/7J.O 75/64.J 83/69.6 76/64.9 84/71.1 96/85.8 89/75.5 91/78.8 81/68.8 72/62.0 72/62. 5 72/62.1 65/58.0 72/62.4 51/50.7 59/54.6 56/53.3 48/48.7 58/54.4 88/74. 6 84/71. J 85/71.8 81/68.4 84/71.J -- -- -- -- -- At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT. BASIC COMPLETE BATTERY BATTERY I 44/46. 7 40/44.7 33/40.6 28/)7.5 56/5J.l 54/52.J -- -- 43/46.J 44/46. 7 21/32.9 20/J2.2 66/58.5 68/59.6 90/76.7 91/77. 6 45/47.7 43/46.4 )2/40.2 JO/J8.8 61/55.7 61/55.8 62/56.4 6J/57.0 55/52.8 55/52.8 )9/44.1 38/43.5 73/63.0 74/6J.8 -- -- 6)/57.2 64/57.4 47/48.4 45/47.4 77/65.6 80/67.4 93/80.3 9)/81. 1 75/63.9 74/63.8 58/54.1 57/5J.6 88/74.8 88/75.2 -- -- . I SCHOOL CARVER ELEMENTARY NUMBER GRADE/RACE TESTED 1 TOTAL 62 8 Jl w Jl 0 0 2 TOTAL 85 B 49 w 36 0 0 3 TOTAL 89 B 49 w 38 0 2 4 TOTAL 94 B 48 w 46 0 0 5 TOTAL 94 B 53 w 39 0 2 6 TOTAL 92 B 49 w 42 0 l LITTLE ROCX SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHT II EDITION PERCENTILE RANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUHKARY 1994 ENVIRONHENT TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE 84/70,8 87/73,6 87/73.5 75/64 . J 72/62.2 75/64.3 74/63.7 56/53 . 1 92/79. 6 94/83.3 94/83.3 89/75 . 7 -- -- -- -- 63/57.0 76/65.1 70/60.9 59/54.8 47/48.5 62/56.5 57/53.8 40/44 . 7 81/68.4 90/76. 7 84/70.6 81/68 . 2 -- -- -- -- 56/53. 0 66/58.7 68/59.8 61/55.6 66/58.4 42/45.5 50/50.0 58/54.4 47/48.5 54/52.2 73/62.6 83/69.9 79/66.7 76/64.9 78/66.5 58/54.1 66/58.9 69/60.5 55/52.4 59/55.1 66/58.6 75/64.5 71/61. 8 76/64.9 83/69.8 44/46 . 7 57/53.6 50/49.9 56/53 . 3 67/59.5 84/71. 1 89/75.8 88/74. 2 90/77.0 93/80.5 -- -- -- -- -- 53/51.6 68/59.9 65/58.0 74/63 . 3 64/57.3 32/40 . 4 56/53.2 47/48.3 53/51. 5 48/48 . 8 77/65.4 79/67.3 83/70.3 91/77 . 9 80/67.6 93/81. 4 98/91. 8 91/78. 8 99/99 . 0 96/86 . 4 69/60.2 71/61. 8 61/56.l 73/63 . l 69/60 . 3 50/49 . 8 53/51.6 49/49 . 2 53/51.7 52/51.0 85/71. 7 86/72.8 74/63.8 89/76 . 0 84/70.9 96/86 . 9 99/99.0 84/70 . 9 91/78 . 2 82/69.3 At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT. BASIC COMPLETE I BATTERY BATTERY 87/73.9 86/72.5 75/64.2 72/62.2 95/83.6 94/82,8 -- -- 68/60.0 69/60.6 52/50 . 9 52/50.8 86/72.4 87/73.9 -- -- 60/55.5 61/55.9 47/48,2 47/48.3 76/65.0 77/65.8 59/54.6 58/54.3 72/62.5 75/64.3 51/50.4 53/51.8 88/75.2 90/77 .4 -- -- 32/55.8 33/57.3 44/47.0 45/47 . 5 78/66.0 82/68.9 97/89.3 98/93.0 69/60.5 70/61. 3 52/51.0 51/50.7 84/70 . 8 86/72.9 97/89 . 6 97/89.6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION BTI\NFORD ACHI&VEHENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1994 SCHOOL: GIBBS !O,GNET ELEHENTl\RY ENVIRONMENT NUMBER TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL GRADE/RACE TESTED READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE 1 TOTAL 43 54/52.3 45/47.5 40/44.6 47/48.3 B 24 43/46.2 34/41.2 27/37.2 32/40.0 w 16 72/62.3 65/58.1 61/55.7 70/60.8 0 3 51/50.6 39/44.2 46/47.6 46/48.1 2 TOTAL 39 53/51. 5 60/55.5 51/50.6 61/55.6 B 22 41/45.4 50/50.2 36/42.6 49/49.5 w 15 67/59.2 70/61. 0 66/58.4 77/65.4 0 2 74/6).3 83/70.2 92/80.0 44/46.8 3 TOTAL 37 64/57.5 86/72.4 71/61.6 73/62.9 83/69.9 B 19 41/45. 3 72/62.4 51/50.7 49/49.3 64/57.8 w 18 84/71.1 94/83.5 87/73.7 91/78.1 94/82.7 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- 4 TOTAL 43 71/61.6 85/72.2 70/61.0 73/62.8 82/69.0 B 24 55/52.5 74/63.5 57/53.8 56/53.2 69/60.6 w 18 86/73.1 95/83.8 85/71.4 89/75.3 93/80.5 0 1 88/74.7 84/70.9 43/46.3 82/69.3 77/65.6 5 TOTAL 38 68/59.8 80/67.8 75/64.4 73/62.9 79/67.2 B 22 49/49.4 66/58.4 61/55.8 52/50.8 64/57.7 w 16 87/74.0 93/80.6 89/76.2 92/79.5 93/80.3 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- 6 TOTAL 37. 74/63.8 77/65.5 69/60.2 70/61. 1 78/66.5 B 21 58/54.0 62/56.4 58/54.1 56/53.l 68/59.6 .w 13 91/78. 5 91/78.5 79/66.8 85/71.9 89/75.5 0 3 80/67.8 86/73.1 87/73.6 83/69.7 89/75.7 At Gc-ades 1 and 2 the SCIEtlCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and c-eflected as one scoc-e undec- ENVIRONMENT. BASIC COMPLETE BATI'ERY BATI'ERY I 52/50.9 47/48.3 39/44.1 33/40.9 71/61. 4 68/60.0 49/49.5 42/45.9 56/52.9 58/54.0 43/46.1 43/46.4 69/60.6 .73/63.1 81/68.6 82/69.1 75/64.1 77/65.5 55/52.8 57/53.7 90/76.6 .91/78.0 -- -- 79/67.3 80/67.9 65/58.2 65/58.2 92/79.4 93/80.8 80/67.7 83/70.1 74/63.4 76/64.9 57/53.9 58/54.2 90/76.4 92/79.5 -- -- 74/63. 3 74/6).6 58/54.3 59/54.5 89/76.1 .89/76.3 85/71.5 85/72.2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1994 SCHOOL: WILLI1\H9 MJ\GNET ELEMENTARY EtfVIRONMENT NUMBER TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL GRJ\DE/RACE TESTED READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE 1 TOTAL 66 82/69.6 86/72.4 84/70. 7 72/62.3 B 33 79/66 . 7 84/70.8 78/66.2 65/58 . 0 w 33 86/72 . 5 87/73.9 89/75.3 79/66.6 0 0 -- -- -- -- 2 TOTAL 67 72/62.5 90/76.9 77/65.2 89/76.2 B 39 65/58.3 85/72 . 0 70/61.0 85/72.0 w 22 81/68.3 95/84.3 84/71.0 94/83.5 0 6 81/68.3 93/81. 7 85/71.6 90/76.4 3 TOTAL 65 71/61. 6 76/65.0 80/67.8 74/63.2 82/68.9 B 34 60/55.5 63/57.2 74/63.6 56/53 . 0 70/61. l w 28 80/67 . 5 86/72 . 8 85/71.4 88/74.4 91/77. 6 0 3 89/76.3 92/79.9 93/80 . 8 87/73.3 89/75.6 4 TOTAL 71 76/64.6 87/73.3 83/70.3 73/62.6 82/69.l B 37 60/55.4 81/68.5 74/63.5 57/53.8 73/62.8 w 33 88/74.9 91/78.0 91/77.7 85/71.9 88/75.2 0 1 80/67.7 99/99 . 0 91/78.2 92/79.6 99/99 . 0 5 TOTAL 67 62/56.5 85/71.5 71/61.7 76/65.0 64/57.5 B 39 46/48.1 81/68.2 64/51.5 66/58 . 6 53/51.3 w 28 81/68.3 89/76.1 80/67.4 87/74.1 78/66.2 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- 6 TOTAL 68 71/61.4 78/65 . 9 70/61.1 74/63.7 73/62 . 6 B 39 56/53.2 69/60 . 5 60/55.2 61/56 . 1 64/57.6 w 28 86/72 . 5 85/72 . 2 82/69.) 87/73 . 6 82/69 . 0 0 1 84/70 . 9 99/99 . 0 72/62.3 94/82 . 7 91/78 . 2 At Grades land 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT . BASIC COMPLETE I BATTERY BATTERY 86/72. 5 84/71.0 83/69.7 80/67.9 89/75.3 88/74.2 -- -- 81/68 . 5 84/71. l 74/63.4 78/66.l 89/75. 7 91/78.l 89/75 . 7 91/78.3 77/65.3 78/65.9 66/58.4 66/58.6 85/72. 0 87/73.4 94/82.3 92/79.9 85/71.4 85/71.6 73/63.1 73/63.l 92/80.l 93/80 . 5 97/89.6 98/93.3 74/63.4 75/64.0 65/58.0 64/57.7 84/71. 1 86/72.8 -- -- 74/63.3 74/63.9 63/56.9 63/57 . 0 85/71. 5 86/72.7 94/82 . 7 95/84.6 SCHOOL: KANN KMHET JR, HIOK NUMBER GRADE/RACE TESTED 7 TOTAL 269 B 151 w 113 0 5 8 TOTAL 25) B 147 w 101 0 5 9 TOTAL 224 B 124 w 96 0 4 LITTLZ ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANKING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION BTAJIFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHT EDITION PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCB) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1994 TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE 59/54.6 51/50.4 62/56.6 U/56.0 56/5),4 42/45.9 311/43.6 46/48.1 42/45.t 43/46.0 78/66,4 . 67/59.1 81/68.1'. 83/69. 74/63.4 54/51. 9 64/57. 63/56. 7 54/52.2 53/51. 9 56/52.9 5)/51.5 62/56.4 6)/56.8 59/54.8 41/45,3 39/44.2 49/49.4 48/48.9 45/47.3 74/6J.2 70/61.0 78/66.0 79/67.2 76/65.1 74/63. l 113/70.0 76/64.6 89/75. 7 77/65.5 53/51. 7 41/45.3 62/56.3 60/55.1 61/55.9 34/41.0 22/lJ.4 45/47.2 39/44.2 40/44.7 76/64.6 68/59.7 79/67.1 81/68.4 82/69.4 88/74. 8 80/68.l 89/75.l 81/68.4 90/77.1 BASIC COMPLETE BATTERY BATTERY 56/5),2 57/5).9 41/45.1 40/44.11 75/63.9 11/65.1 65/58.1 ' 64/57.7 58/54.0 58/54.4 43/46.1 42/45.9 76/64. 8 78/66.1 79/66,7 83/69.8 55/52.7 57/5l.9 35/41.9 35/42.0 77/65.5 81/68.2 90/76.7 91/78.5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAHNINO, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIORT EDITION PERCENTILE RAKlt/NORKAL CURVB EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL BUHKARY uu SCHOOLr PAJUtVIElf KAONET RIGII SCHOOL HUMBER TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL GRADE/RACE TESTED READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE 10 TOTAL 242 6)/56.8 54/52.J 65/58.0 64/57.6 62/56.6 B 1)6 48/48.9 4)/46.1 51/50. 4?. 47/48.5 50/50.l w 100 80/67.8 68/59.9 80/67. 8)/70.0 78/65.9 0 6 49/49.5 74/6J.l 83/70.0 67/59.0 51/50.4 11 TOTAL 2)8 50/50.2 4J/46.1 49/49.6 47/48.6 47/48.5 8 145 J8/4J.5 H/41.1 39/43.9 )6/42.2 J4/41.0 w 88 72/62.J 58/54.0 68/59.7 69/60.2 70/61.J 0 5 29/)8.6 62/56.l 36/42.2 29/38.l 45/47.J BASIC COHPLETE BATTERY B-'TTER'l 64/57 . J , 65/58.0 49/49.S, 49/49.2 80/67. < BJ/69.9 69/60.4 68/59.8 51/50.6 50/50.1 J9/44.l )6/42.7 71/61.5 72/62.4 41/45.4 40/44. 6
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.

<dcterms_creator>Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services</dcterms_creator>